At age 36, Derek Lowe is the more expensive of the two.  In fact, he is the Braves highest paid player.  He is set to earn $15 million per year for each of the next three years.  Lowe has always been a good pitcher, but 2009 was not his best year.  He finished the year with a 15-10 record, a 4.67 ERA, and a 1.52 WHIP.  However, his career numbers are better than that.  For his career, Lowe is 141-117, has an ERA of 3.84 and a WHIP of 1.29.

Vasquez is 34-years old and is signed through 2010 for $11.5 million.  He was also 15-10 in 2009, the same as Lowe, but with a much better ERA of 2.87.  He also had an impressive 1.03 WHIP.  For his career, Vasquez has a record of 142-139, an ERA of 4.19, and a WHIP of 1.24.

Of the two, the Braves would prefer to trade Lowe, both because of the dollars owed to him and the years remaining on his contract.  In exchange, the Braves would like to find a right handed power bat that can play first base and/or one of the outfield corners.  Right now they have their sights set on free agent Xavier Nady.

Although Milton Bradley doesn’t exactly fit the Braves biggest need, might the Cubs and Braves match up on a trade?  First, the Cubs are one of the few teams that can take on Derek Lowe’s contract.  In 2010, Lowe is $6 million more expensive that Bradley.  He’s $4 million more expensive than Bradley in 2011.  That’s a total of $10 million more over two years that the Cubs would have to spend if the traded Bradley for Lowe.  Of course, they are likely going to have to pay somewhere around $10 million to another team to move Bradley anyway, so it really is a wash.

There’s also the matter of the final year of Lowe’s contract.  He’ll be 39 years old and will be owed $15 million.  In three years, $15 million might not be too bad for an effective starting pitcher, but will Lowe still be effective.  It’s a risk, there’s not doubt about that.  Considering the lack of other trade partners the Cubs have been able to interest in Bradley, I think it is a risk worth taking.

The Cubs are in need of a middle-of-the-rotation arm, so adding Lowe would help out the pitching staff.  He’s not the ace that Roy Halladay is, but at least for now he’s solid.

Would the Braves want Bradley?  That’s hard to say.  Bradley sports an above-average on-base percentage and can provide some power from time to time.  He has only hit more than 20 homeruns once in his career, but Xavier Nady, who the Braves have admitted intererst in, has only done it once as well.  Nady’s second best homerun year is 20 while Bradley’s is 19.  In fact, both players have been in the majors since 2000 and Bradley has actually hit 28 more homeruns than Nady during that time.

Their career hitting lines are also similar.  Bradley has a slash line of .277/.371/.450 while Nady’s is .280/.335/.458.  There’s not a lot of difference.

Bradley is 31-years old and is owed $21 million over the next two seasons.  Nady is also 31.  He earned $6.55 million in 2009 with the Yankees and is likely looking for a multi-year deal in the neighborhood of $8-$10 million per year. 

Nady missed nearly all of 2009 after injuring his elbow in April and having Tommy John surgery in July.  So, while Bradley is prone to injury (he stayed relatively healthy in 2009), Nady doesn’t appear to be a better health risk.  In fact, I would question whether Nady will even be ready at the beginning of the season.

By trading for Bradley, the Braves could kill two birds with one stone.  First, they could trade Lowe and pare down their payroll.  They could also fill a need at a corner outfield spot.  Granted, Bradley has not played any first base, but Nady has only played 82 total games at first, so it’s not like he’s built his career there.  If adding a first baseman is really that important, perhaps the Cubs could throw Micah Hoffpauir into the deal to sweeten the pot.

By signing Nady, the Braves will be adding to their payroll without moving one of their pitchers.  It will just make their payroll problem worse.  They also won’t be getting a guy that meets their needs much, if any, better than Bradley does.

Of course, we’re avoiding the white elephant in the room: Bradley’s behavior issues.  Why would the Braves or any other team want to add Milton Bradley to their locker room? 

In better economic times, the answer would probably be that they wouldn’t.  But these are not normal economic times.  Many teams are trying to either hold the line on spending or cut payroll.  The Braves are a team that are currently above their payroll budget.  They need to cut salary and they need to cut relatively deep.

Trading Lowe for Bradley will allow them to decrease payroll while also taking care of their corner outfield need.  Then the trick will be for Bobby Cox to work his clubhouse magic and integrate Bradley into the Braves locker room.  Cox is known as a players manager, so perhaps he and Bradley would hit it off.

So, there you have it.  The perfect solution for the Milton Bradley situation.  Jim?  Mr. Hendry?  If you’re reading this (and I know you are), it’s time to get busy.  I’ve already done the heavy lifting here.  All you have to do is get the Braves to agree to the deal.  That shouldn’t be too hard.

Others were more optimistic about a deal getting done soon.  Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago wrote that the Cubs were on the verge of making a deal and that it could be announced as early as Tuesday.  Of course, Tuesday came and went without any news, but a team source told Bruce Miles that an announcement could come Wednesday.

Jim Hendry and his deputies are being extremely tight lipped about what teams he’s talking to.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com said that Hendry is talking to an AL team, but that it’s not either Tampa Bay nor Texas.  Later in the day, she Tweeted that is was neither Seattle nor Toronto.  At this point, we don’t know who the mystery team might be.  All we know is who it is not.

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times also lists a mystery team and says that the deal could involve the Cubs receiving a player that they will then have to flip.  Sound familiar?  Wittenmyer confirms that  the deal does not involve the Rays or Rangers.  This is a different rumor than we’ve heard before.

Tomorrow is the final day of the Winter Meetings.  Could a deal be announced tomorrow.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed.  The Milton Bradley soap opera has already dragged on too long.

**********

Let me change gears a little bit right now and get a little angry.  I’m going to have to manufacture a little anger because, the truth is, I’m really not angry.  But I feel like I should be.

You see, Curtis Granderson, probably the best fit to play center field for the Cubs next year, was traded today by the Tigers to the New York Yankes (MLBTradeRumors.com has the complete story on the three-team trade).  While the Cubs screwed around trying to trade a guy they should have never signed in the first place, other teams made deals, improved their teams, and got themselves ready for 2010.  The Cubs just did a lot of talking.

The Cubs have a few needs they must address this off season, but everything is on hold until they can trade Bradley.  So far, they have lost out on Billy Wagner.  They’ve lost out on Takashi Saito, and today they lost out on Curtis Granderson.  I don’t know if they could have signed/traded for any of these players.  What I do know is that all three could have filled a need for the Cubs.  I also know that all three are now off the board.   Whether or not the Cubs would have acquired any of the three is not the point.  The point is that they couldn’t even get involved on any of them (whether they wanted to or not) because their hands are tied.

Okay, now for a little reality.  I know that Jim Hendry is in a tough position (at least partially of his own making).  The Milton Bradley “situation” is a little complicated and it’s going to take some hard work, creativity, and time to get it figured out.  It sucks that the Bradley is tying the Cubs hands, but that’s the reality of the situation.  Getting angry doesn’t help.

I’m hopeful that Hendry and crew can get a deal done today before the Meetings end.  There’s a window of opportunity here that is closing quickly.  After the meetings, it’s harder to catch up with other GMs and be able to sit down with them at a moment’s notice.  Obviously, deals can be done outside the Winter Meetings.  It happens all of the time.  But the Meetings do provide a once-a-year opportunity that the Cubs need to use to their advantage.

**********

Does the trade of Curtis Granderson to the Yankees open up any opportunities for the Cubs?  Perhaps.  For instance, what are the Yankees going to do with switch-hitting center fielder Melky Cabrera now?  Is he expendable?  Could he be a fit for the Cubs?  What would the Cubs need to give up to get him?

What about Johnny Damon?  It’s been suggested that trading for Granderson makes it less likely that the Yankees will re-sign Damon.  If so, could Damon be a fit for the Cubs?  Can he still play center field?  Can the Cubs afford him?  Might Damon be the lead-off hitter the Cubs are looking for.

Now that Detroit has traded Granderson, might they be open to a Milton Bradley for Magglio Ordonez swap?  Detroit reportedly needs to dump some salary.  Ordonez is owed $18 million in 2010 with a club (vesting) option in 2011 for $15 million.  He can’t play center field, but he can still hit.  Is Detroit the mystery team all of the writers were talking about?

These are just some random thoughts brought on by the Granderson trade.  As they say, when one door closes, another one opens.  Has another door opened for the Cubs?

**********

Here’s a random rumor with absolutely no factual basis.  I found it on another blog, but thought it was interesting enough to share here.

Could the mystery AL team be the White Sox?  And could a deal that would send Bradley to the Southside bring Alex Rios to the Northside?

This deal may not be as far fetched as you might think.  Rios is owed $58.7 million between 2010 – 2014.  He also has a club option for 2015 for $13.5 million with a $1 million buyout.  Rios brings a relatively similar skill set to Bradley’s, but without the headaches.  Of course, his contract is for three guaranteed years more than Bradley, so the Cubs are committing much more money long term to Rios.  However, it could be argued that the Cubs would be better off paying more money long-term to have a servicable player than they would be to simply pay another team several million just to take Bradley off their hands.

Ozzie Guillen is said not to be too fond of Rios.  The White Sox are looking for a DH who can also play in the field.  At least in theory, the two teams seem to match up. 

Can you imagine Ozzie Guillen trying to deal with Bradley?  It could potentially be hilarious.  Of course, IF they can make it work, and IF Bradley can return to his 2008 form, the White Sox could really rub it in the Cubs faces.  And we all know they would love to do that.

At the moment, this trade rumor is nothing but speculation.  But isn’t it fun to dream this stuff up and then try to figure how to get it done?

**********

ESPN announced that the Dalai Lama of baseball, Peter Gammons, will be leaving the network following the Winter Meetings.  I have the utmost respect for Gammons and love to hear his thoughts on all things baseball (and music).  It’s true that he is far too often Red Sox-centric (with a little Yankees news thrown in for good measure), but he’s so good, it’s easy to forgive him.

The announcement from ESPN simply said that Gammons will be pursuing “new endevors.”  I’m not sure what that means, but I’ve heard that he’ll be joining the MLB Network.  Whatever he does, I’m sure he’ll do great.

UPDATE:  MLB.com is reporting that Peter Gammons will be joining both MLB.com and the MLB Network to be an on-air and online analyst.  Gammons will also be working with NESN, the New England-based network that broadcasts the Red Sox games.  The move will presumably allow Gammons to contine to do the work he loves while spending more time at his homes in Boston and Cape Cod.

Prior to joining Boston on a one year contract in 2009, Saito pitched for three years with the Dodgers where he earned 81 saves in 91 opportunities over a three year period.  Saito was dominate for the Dodgers after taking over for injured closer Eric Gagne in 2006.  From 2006 to 2008, Saito posted ERAs of 2.07, 1.40, and 2.49 respectively.

I like the fact that the Cubs are taking a look at Saito.  As I’ve mentioned previously, I don’t trust Carlos Marmol to handle the closing duties for a Cubs team that is supposed to be a playoff contender next year.  He’s too wild and too inconsistent.  The Cubs need a true closer. 

Of course, someone like Billy Wagner (free agent) or Francisco Cordero (trade) would be expensive and the Cubs don’t have much money to spend.  Saito could be a nice alternative.  At age 39, he’s probably only expecting a one-year deal for around 1$ – $2 million per year.  He earned $1.5 million last year and Boston declined his $6 million option for 2010.

Saito could be a perfect compliment to Marmol.  He could serve as a right-handed set-up man and if Marmol falters, Saito can step right in and take over as the closer.

**********

Yahoo! Sports took a look recently at the Cubs and their needs for the off season.   It’s a good report, although it doesn’t cover any new ground or offer any new insights.

However, the one paragraph that caught my eye read:

“The Cubs completed their third consecutive above-.500 season for the first time since they did it six times in a row from 1967 to 1972. But it wasn’t good enough to get them into the playoffs, as they missed for the first time since 2006. The Cubs certainly aren’t in need of an overhaul. As manager Lou Piniella pointed out, they need better health and bounce-back seasons from a couple of key players in 2010.”

There are a few things to take from this one paragraph.  First, 2009 completed the first three year stretch of winning seasons for the Cubs since 1972.  Seriously, that’s pathetic.  However, rather than looking too far back in horror, let us all rejoice in the fact that the Cubs are coming off three consecutive winning seasons as they enter the 2010 campaign.  That’s good.  That’s positive.  It’s something to build on.

I think a lot of fans look at the 2009 season as a complete disaster.  True, injuries and season-long slumps took their toll on the team, but the fact remains that the Cubs finished the season with a winning record.  And that brings us to the second point I want to make about the above-quoted paragraph.

Lou Piniella is right when he says that the Cubs are going to be just fine in 2010 if they can stay healthy and a couple of players (Alfonso Soriano and Geovany Soto) can have bounce-back seasons.  Honestly, that’s not too much to ask.  Every team’s success hinges on the health of it’s players, so Piniella isn’t asking for anything that every team asks for every season.

As for bounce-back years, history would indicate that Alfonso Soriano is going to have a much better year in 2010 than he had in 2009.  Just look at his career numbers.  His 2009 season was an aberrtion.

Geovany Soto could go either way.  Was 2009 an aberration for him, or was his 2008 rookie season?  My fear is that it’s the former, but I hope it’s the latter.  Only time will tell.

The final point I want to make about the paragraph from Yahoo! Sports is what it doesn’t say.  I suspect that if they had quoted Lou Piniella directly rather than paraphrasing him, he would have said something to the effect of “The Cubs will be fine next year if we can stay healthy and get bounce-back years from a couple of players AND if Jim Hendry can move Milton Bradley, add a second baseman who can hit lead-off, and a center fielder who is also a middle-of-the-order run producer.”

I agree that the Cubs need to stay healthy in 2010 and that Soriano and Soto have to produce like they have in the past.  But that’s only two-thirds of the equation.  Jim Hendry also has to do his job and fill the holes that the team currently has.  And that can’t happen until he can trade Milton Bradley.

I don’t have any inside information, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a Milton Bradley trade happens this week before the Winter Meetings.  Hendry has to move Bradley so he can concentrate on the team’s other needs as the GMs head to Indianapolis for their annual off season pow wow.

**********

Chicago Cubs Online has a recap of the Saturday Talkin’ Baseball show on Chicago’s ESPN 1000 with Bruce Levine and Jonathan Hood.  Again, nothing earth-shattering, but I was interested in the comment concerning the death of any possible trade of Milton Bradley to the Texas Rangers.

“According to Bruce Levine, the Rangers are no longer a possibility for Milton Bradley. Due to the ownership situation, the Rangers must receive approval from Major League Baseball to spend money … Texas is in receivership. They cannot even hire a coach without receiving permission.”

Last week, the talk was that Texas would be interested in Milton Bradley, provided the Cubs pick up $16 million of the $21 million owed to him over the next two years.  Apparently that’s not even a possibility any more.  Is there any team that has any interest in Milton Bradley?

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.