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

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

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

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

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

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

The hysteria over Cubs rookie shortstop Starlin Castro got a jump start last night as he hit a three-run home run in his very first major league at-bat.  The opposite field shot came on a looping curving ball from Reds pitcher Homer Bailey. 

Later in the game, Castro came to the plate with the bases loaded and drove in three runs with a triple to left center field.  He ended the game with six RBI, a major league record.  That’s one game, one record set.  My gosh, what can’t this kid do?

Despite his fantastic start, there are still those in the blogosphere who believe that the Cubs are making a mistake by bringing him up to the big leagues too soon.  They feel the move will stunt the 20-year old’s growth.  They point to the fact that Castro jumped over AAA as proof that the Cubs are desperate and are sacrificing Castro in the process.  They also complain that, although the Cubs have waited long enough to promote Castro to postpone his free agency status for another year, he will likely qualify for Super Two status if he remains in the big leagues for the rest of the year.

I don’t know if Castro is ready for big league baseball.  I don’t think anyone knows for sure.  But at some point, the Cubs have to find out.  He’s been tearing up AA pitching, so why not give him a shot at big league pitching?

Sure, he’s only 20-years old, but he has a mature approach to the game and the Cubs believe he is ready for the big stage.  Plus, Ozzie Smith was only 19 when he hit the big leagues.  It would be horrible for Castro to have a similar career (at least with the glove).

Also, jumping over AAA is not unheard of.  The better players often jump from AA to the big leagues.  Triple-A is a good place to sand off the rough edges, but it’s not a necessary step in a baseball player’s career.

The argument concerning Super Two status is by far the weakest argument the naysayers have.  The short counter-argument is, who cares?  It may cost the Cubs a little more a little sooner, but the amount in the whole scheme of things is negligible. 

In case you weren’t aware of this, Mike Fontenot qualified for Super Two status this past year.  If the Cubs can drop a little extra money for the privlege of having Fontenot in the big leagues, certainly they can spend the money to have Castro on the big team sooner rather than later.

To make the Super Two status argument even weaker, there have been rumors that the “Super Two” concept is going to be done away with in the upcoming collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the Players Association.  So why worry about something that may not even exist in a couple of years?

Finally, by bringing Castro up to the big leagues early, he was unable to accrue much minor league service time.  That may not seem important at first glance, but it does give Castro four minor league options rather than the more normal three.  So if Castro struggles early in his career, the Cubs can return him to the minors without having to be too concerned about him running out of options.

It will be interesting to see how the Chicago media handles Castro’s ascendency into stardom.  I was in Atlanta earlier this year to see the media there fall all over themselves to illustrate the force of nature that is Jason Heyward.  After just two major league games, Heyward was being compared to Ken Griffey, Jr.  And it was pointed out by the talking heads that Heyward actually was having a better career than Griffey had at a similar point in his career.  I kid you not.

So, all hail Starlin Castro.  He is the greatest rookie to come along for the Cubs since the great Tuffy Rhodes.

According to Carrie Muskat of MLB.com, Carlos Zambrano, Randy Wells, Jeff Samardjzia, Sean Marshall, Jeff Stevens, Tom Gorzelanny, Mike Parisi, David Patton, Jeff Gray, John Gaub, Vince Perkins, and Koyie Hill showed up at least two days early.  Most are there to get a jump on Spring Training, but at least one, Tom Gorzelanny, said he simply wanted to escape Chicago’s frigid winter.

**********

The Cubs are expected to go to an arbitration hearing later this week with Ryan Theriot.  Maury Brown from The Biz of Baseball put together some thoughts on Theriot and his closest comparable shortstop, Stephen Drew.

This same discussion took place last week on The Cubs Reporter.  I agree with those who feel Stephen Drew is the superior shortstop.  The problem with this opinion is that the stats don’t really support it.  With the except of having greater power, Drew pales in comparison to Theriot in most other stat categories.

My prediction is that Theriot will win the arbitration hearing (he’s asking for $3.4 million, the Cubs are offering $2.6 million).  Since Drew signed for $3.4 million, I guess that figure is fair.  Even so, I have a hard time agreeing with it.

**********

Does your head ever hurt when you read baseball statistics.  Mine sometimes does.  I’m trying to become more stat literate, but sometimes, understanding the stat requires more math ability than I possess.  Plus, it sometimes seems like a stat is slicing and dicing other stats to come up with the same information.

Stats guru John Sikels of MinorLeagueBall.com feels the same way:

The newest stuff is becoming so granular that I’m having problems making sense of it. I’m a humanities guy, and the most advanced math is beyond my ability to completely comprehend. My personal opinion is that the many of the newest metrics (at least in regards to hitting and pitching) are just more complicated ways to say the same basic truths.

I wrote previously about my desire for one offensive stat that could tell you everything you’d ever want to know about a hitter.  Sure, it’s pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but the wish was borne of my desire to condense all of the mathemastically complicated stats into one stat that even I can understand.  Unfortunately, baseball stats are probably too complicated for that. 

I’m not sure that many of the new stats are really helping us understand baseball any better.  If you first have to understand arcane mathematical formulas before you can understand the stat, then most of the population will never understand most stats.  Plus, are these new stats really telling us anything new or are statisticians and math majors simply showing off because they can?  I could probably figure out 15 different ways to tell you that the grass needs to be cut, but do you really need more than just one easily understood way?

Whenever anyone starts to question the value of baseball statistics, they run the risk of being labeled a heretic.  I don’t mean to criticize stats per se.  My concern is with the stats that convey the same information as another stat, but in a more convoluted way.  If you’re not going to provide any new information, why create a new statistic?

**********

Scout.com listed the 25 best prospects in baseball this past week.  Two Cubs graced the top 25.  Josh Vitters came in at number 11, while Starlin Castro showed up at number 22.

I don’t necessarily agree with the placement of the two Cubs prospects, but I have to admit that it is somewhat impressive that the Cubs have two prospects on the list.  The A’s, Marlins and Twins were the only other clubs to have two prospects on the top 25 list.

**********

David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune comes to the defense of Jerry Reinsdorf and his opposition to what is being referred to as the Cubs tax.  If you already know my opinion on Reinsdorf and the other hypocrite MLB owners who have Spring Training facilities in Arizona, then you probably won’t be surprised about how I feel about Haugh’s article.

Haugh writes:

From here, Reinsdorf’s refusal to play ball looks more like a matter of principle than anything personal and a smart move well within his rights as a shrewd businessman.

The words “Reinsdorf” and “principle” should not be used in the same sentence.  Reinsdorf’s opposition to the Cubs tax has nothing to do with principle.  It has everything to do with money, or more accurately, Jerry Reinsdorf’s money.

Was Reinsdorf being “principled” when his White Sox abandoned Tuscon in favor of Glendale and the $184 million taxpayer-funded Spring Training facility there?  Was he being principled when he left the taxpayers holding the bag for more than $30 million in unpaid bonds when he decided to vacate the White Sox Spring Training home in Tuscon for greener (pun intended) pastures?  Was he being principled when he put his hand out for taxpayer funding that helped him build U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago?  Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t know the meaning of the word “principle.”

I also have to take exception to Haugh’s contention that Reinsdorf is being a “shrewd businessman” by opposing the Cubs tax.  If the funding scheme the Arizona legislature has devised falls flat on it’s face and the Cubs leave Arizona, Reinsdorf’s White Sox will be among the biggest losers.  Many fans attending White Sox Spring Training games are in Arizona primarily because of the Cubs, or at least in part because of the Cubs.  If the Cubs leave, so will many of the fans.  And no one will be hurt more by this exodus than the White Sox.

Adding a dollar surcharge to all Spring Training tickets is a small price to pay to keep the Cubs in Arizona.  The surcharge will likely have a negligible impact on overall ticket sales, but if the Cubs leave Arizona, the other MLB teans will see significant decreases in Spring Training attendance.  If Jerry Reinsdorf was really a “shrewd businessman,” he would be in favor of the Cubs tax, not fighting it tooth and nail.

Whatever the case, things are improving.  Starlin Castro was recently named to the MLB Top 50 Prospects List.  Having a player on the Top 50 Prospect List is nothing new.  The Cubs had three players in the top 50 as recently as 2007 (Eric Patterson, Felix Pie, Donald Veal).  The big difference now is the depth that the Cubs have in the minor leagues.

The Cubs have several MLB-legit prospects at all levels of their minor league system.  Castro is at the top of the list* and will most likely start the year at Triple A.  Of course, that assumes that the Cubs don’t succumb to the urge to have him start the year in the majors.  He’s only 19 years old and there’s no reason to rush him.  That doesn’t mean the Cubs won’t rush him, but they shouldn’t.  He will benefit from a half-year or more in Triple-A.

Brett Jackson, perhaps the most athletic player in the Cubs minor league system, will likely start the year at Hi-A Daytona.  Although he only played 26 games (112 ABs) in Peoria last year after sprinting through the Arizona League and Rookie League in Boise, don’t be surprised if he does the same thing in Daytona and ends up in Double AA before the end of the year.

The Cubs #3 prospect is Josh Vitters.  He was the #1 prospect in the Cubs organization in 2008 and 2009, but slipped to #3 this year.  Great things are still expected from him, but his defensive ability at third base hasn’t progressed as well as expected.  However, he can still hit and Baseball America predicts that at some point, the Cubs will shift Vitters to the outfield so they can take advantage of his bat without having to suffer through his growing pains at third base.  Although Vitters struggled a bit at Hi-A Daytona last year, there’s a good chance he’ll start the 2010 season in Double A Tennessee. 

Right handed pitcher Andrew Cashner comes in as the #4 prospect for the Cubs.  He pitched well in Double A last year (3-4, 2.60 ERA, 1.19 WHIP) and will likely start 2010 in the starting rotation at Triple A Iowa.  He may see time on the big club in 2010 depending on injuries.  Cashner was a terrific closer in college.  The Cubs have turned him into a starting pitcher, but I could definitely see him in the Cubs bullpen in the next year or two in either a set-up role, or perhaps even closing.

Jay Jackson is another right handed pitcher who will likely start the year in the starting rotation in Triple A.  He has good stuff and I can see him in the Cubs starting rotation in a year or two.  He’s a tremendous all around athlete who can hit (ala Carlos Zambrano).  To me, even though he’s the Cubs #5 prospect, he seems a little bit like a sleeper to me.  He doesn’t get a lot of publicity (certainly not like Castro or Vitters), but he has the stuff to be a successful big league pitcher.

Nineteen-year old Hak-Ju Lee is the Cubs #6 prospect.  The shortstop from South Korea spent 2009 in the Northwest League (Rookie League) where he hit .330/.399/.420 with 2 homeruns and 33 RBI in 68 games.  He’s raw, but has great potential.  Because the Cubs are pretty well stocked at shortstop at the moment (Castro, Darwin Barney, D.J. LeMehieu), there has been some talk of getting Lee some experience at second or in center field.  He has tremendous speed and would probably do well as a center fielder.  However, any position change will probably wait a while.  Lee is expected to start the year as the shortstop for Peoria.

Right behind Lee as the #7 prospect is second baseman Logan Watkins.  The 20-year old was Lee’s double play partner at Boise last year and is expected to move up to Peoria with Lee this year.  Watkins is a terrific athlete.  He was a well-respected quarterback in high school who gave up a baseball scholarship at Wichita State to sign with the Cubs in the 21st round of the 2008 draft.  The Cubs are hoping for big things from Watkins.

The #8 top prospect is Chris Carpenter.  Just like his namesake with St. Louis, the Cubs Carpenter is a right handed pitcher.  He had an unimpressive 2008 in Rookie League Boise, but 2009 was much better.  He started the year at Lo-A Peoria, moved up to Hi-A Daytona, and eventually ended the season at Double A Tennesssee.  2010 should find him starting the year in Tennessee again with a good possibility of spending part of the year in Triple A.

Ryan Flaherty, the Cubs #9 prospect, is an incredibly versatile player.  He played shortstop in college (Vanderbilt) and has also played second and third base since joining the Cubs minor league system.  His future may be as a super-sub (he can play the outfield too) or as a platoon player who thumps righties, but struggles against lefties.  That’s not to say that he will never be a successful every day MLB player.  However, from what I’ve seen, he appears to be underperforming for a former suuplemental first round draft pick.  I know he’s only been in the minors for two years, but I guess I expected bigger things from him.  He will most likely start 2010 at Daytona.

Former LSU shortstop D.J. LeMehieu is the #10 prospect.  Personally, I would have ranked him higher.  I really like this kid.  Although he’s a shortstop now, I predict the Cubs depth at SS will force him to move to a different position as he progresses through the minor leagues.  I think he’ll get the nod as the starting SS in Daytona this year, but may be moved to second base in the near future.  I would love to see LeMehieu at second and Castro at short for the Cubs in a few years.

* The Top Ten Prospects are based on the list compiled by Baseball America.

Other Cubs minor leaguers to watch are catcher Wellington Castillo (will start the year in Double A Tennessee most likely), Darwin Barney (another SS who will likely start the year in Tennessee), 21-year old outfielder Kyler Burke (will likely play in either Peoria or Daytona in 2010), Tyler Colvin (AAA outfielder who could make the big team out of Spring Training), Rebel Ridling (1B who will start the year in either Peoria or Daytona), Brandon Guyer (versatile OF who could start 2010 in either Daytona or Tennessee), and Marquez Smith (3B who will spend 2010 in either AA or AAA).

Although the 2010 version of the Cubs is not overly exciting, the same can not be said about the Cubs minor league teams.  They have some terrific players in the pipeline and whoever is the GM in coming years will have some good young talent to work with.

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The part about the article that bothered me was:

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

If the Cubs are actually interested in Granderson (I think they are), they are not going to be alone.  According to Ken Davidoff of Newsday, both the Yankees and Angels have an eye on the Detroit center fielder.  Presumably, the Yankees would move Melky Cabrera to left to accommodate Granderson in center.  The move would also lessen the need/likelihood of the Yankees bringing back Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, or both.

The Angels are interested in using Granderson as a left fielder (since they already have Torii Hunter in center).  A Granderson trade by the Angels would force Juan Rivera over to right field, or off the field completely and into the DH role.

Regardless of the competition for Granderson, Jim Callis of Baseball America (via MLBTradeRumors.com) thinks the Cubs are in the best position to make a trade with Detroit.  At the moment, the Cubs have a plethora of young middle infield talent that may interest Dombrowski and the Tigers. 

In an article from a couple of days ago, Phil Rogers of Chicago Breaking Sports.com opined that the Cubs should offer up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro for Granderson.  I disagreed with Rogers as far as Castro goes, but I agreed that the Cubs should aggresively pursue Granderson.  Today, in his latest article, Rogers throws Josh Vitters and Andrew Cashner into the mix. 

One guy that I really trust on matters involving the Cubs, especially the minor leagues, is Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter.com.  Somewhat surprisingly, Arizona Phil says that he too would trade Starlin Castro for Curtis Granderson.  In comment #15, Arizona Phil admits that Castro is the Cubs best shortstop prospect, but also says that the Cubs have other good prospects at short as well.

In comment #13, Arizona Phil says:

“Curtis Granderson is exactly the type of speed/power combo player Jim Hendry and Gary Hughes love. If he is available, I believe Hendry will go after him, even if it costs the Cubs Starlin Castro, Andrew Cashner or Jay Jackson, and a third pre-arb auto-renewal guy (like maybe U. of Michigan alum Jake Fox?).”

I would be hesitant including Castro in a trade for Granderson.  However, generally speaking, I think you are almost always better off trading an unproven minor leaguer for a proven major leaguer.  Starlin Castro looks like he has the makings of a big league star, but how many players have looked exactly the same way in the past and have fizzled once they reached the big leagues?  Too many to count. 

I don’t want to gut the Cubs farm system for Granderson, but one of the purposes of developing prospects is to use them as trade bait for proven big league players.  Too often, I think we as fans fall in love with the Cubs prospects and we want to make then untouchable.  However, very few guys ever make it to the big leagues with the team that drafted them.  More often than not, they make it to the big leagues with their second or third team (if they make it at all). 

 I can live with including Castro in a package for Granderson.  It would annoy me a bit, but I could live with it.

**********

As you may recall, in a report on ESPN Chicago radio a few days ago, Bruce Levine said that he expected the Cubs to announce a trade involving Milton Bradley.  The announcement hasn’t come yet, but I have heard an interesting rumor that actually makes some sense.

The oft quoted (at least in this post) Arizona Phil of The Cub Reporter threw out the possibility of the Cubs trading Bradley to Tampa Bay in exchange for Pat Burrell.  Phil believes the two teams will split Bradley’s 2011 salary.

Once they obtain Burrell, the Cubs will turn around and trade him to the Mets for Luis Castillo.  The Mets badly want to trade Castillo and the move will open up a spot at second base for free agent Orlando Hudson.

From the Cubs perspective, they’ll get rid of Bradley and the trade will allow them to add Castillo at second.  Castillo will turn 35 during the 2010 season.  He hit .302/.369/.354 in 2009 for the Mets with 1 homerun and 40 RBI. Castillo is signed through 2011 and is set to earn $6 million per year.  In 2009, Castillo had the worst fielding year of his career according to Fangraphs, with a UZR/150 rating of -12.0.

The Cubs are desperate to get rid of Bradley, and the fact that they may end up  with Luis Castillo shows just how desperate they are.  To be fair, it appears that most teams interested in trading for Bradley are teams that will only make a trade if the Cubs pay all/most of Bradley’s salary.  So although Castillo is not the ideal second baseman, Jim Hendry would probably be lucky to get him, if it means not having to pay too much of the $21 million still owed to Bradley.  I guess I can’t be too critical if the move helps the Cubs dump Bradley and add a piece (albeit a not very good piece) that they need (i.e. a second baseman).

This three-way trade is by no means perfect, but it may just be the best that the Cubs can do.  And when it comes to getting rid of Milton Bradley, that may be enough.

Even though his slash line took a hit in 2009, Granderson hit a career high 30 homeruns, all the more impressive since it was done while playing in Detroit’s spacious ball yard.  Granderson appears to be a “buy low” opportunity.  His trade value is down from a year or two ago, but his potential remains high.

Chicago newspaper columnists are almost giddy with excitement over the potential of the Cubs trading for Granderson. Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times was more subdued when he said ” given the ideal fit provided by the Chicago-area native (i.e. Granderson), conversations between the teams appear inevitable.”  Phil Rogers of the Tribune and ChicagoBreakingSports.com was much more excited.  The headline of his article, Cubs Must Go After Granderson, gives you an idea of where he stands on the subject.

Rogers praises Granderson’s on-field play and off-field involvement in the community.  He calls Detroit “crazy” for thinking about trading him, and then becomes almost apoplectic when he says “The Cubs should do absolutely everything to get him, if he is available. There’s no debate about this.”

Rogers then starts the trade talks by offering up Carlos Marmol and Starlin Castro.  I’m not very high on Marmol as a closer, but at the moment, he is the only one the Cubs have.  Also, I’m not ready to annoint Castro the second coming of Derek Jeter or Ozzie Smith, but he does appear the heir to the throne at shortstop.  Is this really the price that the Cubs want to pay for Granderson?

Thankfully, Phil Rogers’ trade offers do not obligate the Cubs in any way.  It is true that Granderson would be a good fit for the Cubs in center field.  I’m not sure where he would fit in the line up.  His numbers seem to be better suited for the middle-of-the-order than leadoff, but that’s an arguement for another day.  For now, let’s focus on what price the Cubs would have to pay to acquire Granderson.

First, let’s look at money.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $23.75 million.  His contract also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million with a $2 million buyout.  All tolled, Granderson is guaranteed to make $25.75 million over the next four years.  He’s not cheap, but his contract is not outrageous either.

Next, who would the Cubs have to give up to get Granderson?  Rogers’ offer of Marmol and Castro is too high.  I wouldn’t make Castro untouchable, but for this deal, I’d take him off the table.  I’d be willing to trade Marmol, but only if the Cubs have a really good idea of who is going to replace him.  As I’ve stated previously, I don’t think the Cubs should go into 2010 counting on Marmol to be their closer, but at the moment, he’s the only one they have.

Other names could include Jake Fox, Micah Hoffpauir, Aaron Heilman, Mike Fontenot, and Aaron Miles (if they’ll take him).  A few of these guys are non-tender candidates, but they still have value.  Sean Marshall is another valuable trade chip.  He deserves a shot as a starter somewhere, but it appears that he’s not going to get that shot with the Cubs again this year.

The Cubs minor leagues have some interesting trade candidates.  Darwin Barney is one guy who is proving himself in the minors, but who will likely not have a place to play when he’s ready for the big leagues in a year or two.  J.R. Mathes led the Iowa Cubs in wins last year, but doesn’t appear to have a future on the big league staff.  Rather than let him rot in Iowa (no offense to the Great State of Iowa), why not use him as trade bait.

These are just a few options.  I don’t know what the Tigers would want in return for Granderson other than salary relief.  The Cubs have some valuable players they can send Detroit’s way.  The important thing now is to keep Phil Rogers away from the negotiations.

**********

Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago said in a radio interview that the Cubs will announce a Milton Bradley trade in the next 3-4 days.  He mentioned the Rangers, Rays, Mets and Tigers as possible trade partners for the Cubs.  

The Rangers are starting to not make sense to me if Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated is correct that the Rangers would only be willing to pay $5 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  The Rays also do not make sense.  If the Cubs send Bradley to Tampa Bay for Pat Burrell, they will have to turn around and trade him, likely picking up a portion of his contract.

The Mets don’t make sense on a couple of levels.  First, although they would like to move Luis Castillo and his remaining two years and $12 million contract, they have already said that they are not interested in Bradley.  Also, New York isn’t exactly the quiet, laid-back small market Bradley needs.   The Cubs may have interest in Castillo, but a third team would probably have to get involved for a deal to work.

The Tigers could be interesting on several fronts.  First, I’ve already talked about Curtis Granderson.  The Cubs could use him, but there’s no way that the Tigers trade him straight up to the Cubs for Bradley.  Might the throw in Dontrelle Willis?  He has been largely ineffective for the Tigers and he is owed $12 million in 2010.  Jim Hendry likes his reclamation projects, but D-Train is awfully expensive.  Even so, I would rather pay Willis $12 million to play for the Cubs next year than I would to pay Texas $16 million over two years for Bradley not to play for the Cubs.

The Tigers also have some interest in trading Magglio Ordonez.  He is owed $18 million in 2010 and he has a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  The 2011 option vests if he starts 135 games or gets 540 plate appearances in 2010, or he gets 270 starts or 1080 plate appearances between 2009 and 2010.

Ordonez can still be a dangerous hitter, but he’s becoming more of a DH than an everyday position player.  In 2009, he played right field in 104 of the 131 games in which he played.  That number will likely go down in 2010.  Plus, the Cubs would really like to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field.  Adding Ordonez wouldn’t allow that.

I don’t know where Milton Bradley is going to end up or who the Cubs might get for him, but it will sure be nice not talking about him anymore.  It will also be nice being able to move on with the off season.

In the field, the Cubs would prefer to add a center fielder and move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field.  If that center fielder is a middle-of-the-order run producer, all the better.  The team will also be looking for a second baseman, unless they can find a good shortstop, which will force Ryan Theriot over to second base.

The starting pitching staff is pretty well set, but the bullpen is a bit in flux.  Will John Grabow re-sign?  More importantly, do the Cubs want to enter the 2010 season with Carlos Marmol as their closer?

Over the next few days, I’ll take a look at the team and give my thoughts on what the Cubs brain trust should do this offseason to get ready for 2010.  Today, I’ll start with the infield.

**********

First Base — There’s little doubt who will play first base next year.  Derrek Lee will be entering the final year of his contract in 2010 and there’s no reason to believe he’s going anywhere.  However, the question of who is going to back him up is a good one.  Lee has missed playing time over the past couple of years with a pinched nerve in his neck.  If the problem flares up again, who will play first base?

Within the organization, Micah Hoffpauir is the first guy that comes to mind.  Jake Fox is another.  Both guys are considered “offense-first” type of players, but I think both showed this past year that they can do a credible, if unspectacular, job in the field.  Although Fox is generally considered the more potent offensive threat, they put up very similar number in 2009.  Hoffpauir bats left-handed, which may carry more weight in the decision than it should.  Fox is more versatile in the field.

Another option is for the Cubs to sign a fairly low dollar free agent who could back up at first base and be a dependable bat off the bench.  Someone on the back side of their career that can accept a backup role and can be an additional veteran presence.  Someone in the mold of Tony Clark or Kevin Millar comes to mind.  The knock against bringing in someone like Clark or Millar is they probably won’t put up any better numbers than Hoffpauir or Fox, but they will probably cost more.  That’s a good point.  So unless you feel that the veteran presence is that important, stick with Hoffpauir or Fox and save your money.

**********

Second Base — We found out in 2009 that Mike Fontenot is not the answer to the second base question.  The Cubs also have Aaron Miles, Jeff Baker and Andres Blanco on the roster and all three can play second base.  Even so, I don’t think any of them is the answer the Cubs are looking for at second.

In my opinion, Aaron Miles does not have a role to play on the 2010 Cubs.  He needs to be traded or released.  I know that releasing him will cost some money, but keeping him on the team will waste a valuable roster spot.  If you can trade him, great, but be willing to release him if you have to.

I envision Jeff Baker playing the role of a poor man’s Mark DeRosa.  He impressed in his time with the Cubs last year and I can see him coming back in an expanded role.  I don’t foresee him as the everyday second baseman, but rather as a super sub.  He can play several positions and do a credible job at all of them.

Andres Blanco is an interesting player.  He’s known for his awesome defense, but what people don’t know is that his offense has improved since joining the Cubs.  My understanding is that Blanco battled injuries during the early part of his career and did not get the at-bats he so desperately needed.  Now that he is healthy, his offense is improving and is becoming a much larger part of his game.

Although it would not be my first choice, I could see a middle infield made up of Theriot and Blanco.  I’d prefer Blanco at short and Theriot at second, but the other way around could work as well.  In my opinion, the Cubs should only consider this if they can’t find a more suitable solution via free agency or a trade.

Some possible free agent targets the Cubs might consider are Chone Figgins, Orlando Hudson and Akinori Iwamura.  I’m almost certain that Figgins will be too expensive (four or five years at $10 million/year?).  Also, he’s somewhat of a hot commodity at the moment, so there will be considerable competition for him.

Hudson is a little more realistic, but considering that he was beaten out of his starting job with the Dodgers by Ronnie Belliard, the bloom is a bit off this rose.  Even so, Hudson put up respectable numbers in 2009 (.283/.357/.417, 9 HR, 62 RBI) and might be a good fit for the Cubs.  He’s neither the speed demon nor the middle-of-the-order run producer they want, but he’d likely do a better job than the in-house candidates.

Iwamura is an interesting possibility.  He’s currently with the Rays and they have an option on him for next year that will cost them $4.25 million.  The Ray are likely to opt for the buyout ($250,000) rather than pick up his option.  They have other less expense possibilities at second base, so Iwamura will likely be a free agent.

In 2009, Iwamura had a hitting line of .290/.355/.390 in 69 games.  Again, he’s not a speed demon or a middle-of-the-order run producer, but he could still be a nice addition to a Cubs team that had trouble getting on base this past year.

A couple of other free agent possibilities include Mark DeRosa and Freddie Sanchez.  I like both of these guys, but I don’t think either one makes sense.  DeRosa is going to be 35 years old and he’s coming off of wrist surgery.  He was once an integral part of the Cubs, but that ship has sailed. 

Sanchez is an interesting possibility.  San Francisco has a club option on Sanchez for $8 million with a $600,000 buyout.  Opinion has been that the Giants will opt for the buyout, but would like to sign him for less money.  Sanchez will be 32 in 2010 and will be coming off knee surgery.  He’s expected to be 100% healthy by Spring Training.

I like Sanchez and he interests me if the price is right.  Problem is, I don’t think the price will be right.

Another interesting free agent name is Placido Polanco, who will be 34 next season.  Polanco hit .285/.331/.396 with 10 homeruns and 72 RBI for Detroit in 2009.  He’s a career .303/.348/.414 hitter, but at least initially, the market seems to be soft for him.  He made $4.6 million last year.  If he is willing to take a pay cut, he’ll be in the Cubs financial ball park.  If not, he’ll be playing for someone else next year.

Potential trade targets include Kelly Johnson (Atlanta) and Brian Roberts (Baltimore).  Roberts would obviously cost the Cubs much more that Johnson.  In fact, the only way Roberts could conceivably end up with the Cubs is if he is part of a package involving Milton Bradley.  I’ve pushed the idea of a Milton Bradley and others package for Roberts and Luke Scott.  I don’t know if either Jim Hendry or Orioles GM Andy MacPhail have jumped on that bandwagon yet, but I’ll keep beating the drum.

Johnson doesn’t seem to bring anything to the table that Baker or Blanco couldn’t provide.  He’s the type of player that Hendry has shown an interest in in the past, but I don’t think he makes sense for the Cubs.

**********

Shortstop — Unless the Cubs make some sort of unexpected move, Ryan Theriot will be the starting shortstop in 2010.  Let’s face it, despite the call for an all-star caliber shortstop by many fans, Theriot has done a more than credible job during his tenure.  In 2009, he hit .284/.383/.369 with 7 homeruns and 54 RBI.  And he only made $500,000.  What a bargain.

Blaco is another guy that could conceivable take over short and push Theriot over to second.  Eventually, I think Starlin Castro will do this anyway, so maybe it’s a good idea to get Theriot started at second now. 

Although I don’t expect the Cubs to bring in a shortstop via trade or free agency, there are a couple of names out there to consider.  I don’t foresee the Cubs getting in on Marco Scutaro, but there is a small chance they could take a flyer on Orlando Cabrera or Miguel Tejada.  The reason I think these two guys may be on the Cubs radar is because I expect both to still be available at the end of the offseason for a relatively bargain price (ala Bobby Abreau last year).  It wouldn’t bother me to get a veteran shortstop for a year to hold the position for Starlin Castro in 2011.  However, I don’t expect it to happen.

**********

Third Base — With any luck, Aramis Ramirez will return healthy next year and will stay healthy all year.  He missed two months in 2009 with a shoulder separation and trying to fill his place in the lineup and in the field proved to be ctwo hallenges the Cubs were not up for.  So who will be Ramirez’ backup in 2010?

Jake Fox is one internal possibility.  He’s not going to win any Gold Gloves at third, but he did a better job there than many expected.  With some additional work, he might even be credible.

Jeff Baker is another guy that can fill in for Ramirez.  In fact, I never did quite understand why the Cubs didn’t give Baker more playing time at third in 2009 while Ramirez was injured.  As the team’s super sub, I would call on him to fill in at third when needed.  As such, I don’t foresee and moves to bring in a backup for Ramirez.

************

Catcher — Who is the real Geovany Soto?  Did we see the real Soto in 2008 when he won NL Rookie of the Year honors and hit .285/.364/.504 with 26 homeruns and 62 RBI or was his .218/.321/381 with 11 homeruns and 47 RBI in 2009 the real Soto?  I wish I knew.  I think the Cubs feel the same way.

Soto’s performance in 2008 was a pleasant surprise.  His minor league numbers didn’t lead people to think he would hit as well in a full-time MLB role as he did.  Now, after his performance in 2009, people are asking whether or not 2008 was just a fluke.

I have little doubt that the Cubs will enter the 2010 season with Soto as their starting catcher.  However, I’m not convinced that they will stick with him for very long if he struggles at the plate the way he did in 2009.

The Cubs will not look to replace Soto via trade or free agency, but they may look into bringing back free agent catcher Henry Blanco to act as a mentor to Soto.  There is some thought that Soto struggled in 2009 without the same influence that Blanco provided in 2008.  Blanco will be 38 years old, so the Cubs should not expect too much out of him, but if he can play the role of mentor to Soto and give him a day off every once in a while, bringing Blanco back on a one-year deal may be a good investment.

Having said all of this, I think it is fair to ask, what about Koyie Hill?  Hill was a capable fill in for Soto while he was on the DL and during his offensive struggles.  He deserves to be brought back.  Unfortunately, things don’t always work out the way they should.  Since Hill is out of minor league options, he may be moved as part of a trade.

It would not bother me to see Hill brought back next year, but the more important issue is putting Soto in a situation where he can  succeed.  If bringing Henry Blanco back improves Soto’s chances of repeating 2008, by all means, bring Blanco back and trade Hill.

**********

That’s it for the infield.  Next, I’ll look at what needs to be done with the outfield.