Admittedly, I am in the minority on this issue.  Given the circumstances, I think Jim Hendry did an excellent job of trading the troubled Bradley without having to pay a significant amount of money to do it.  In fact, he even got Seattle to throw in some money on the deal. 

Most of the criticism of the deal centers around the fact that Carlos Silva is not very good.  It’s a difficult point to argue.  In 2008, he posted a 4-15 record and a 6.46 ERA.  In 2009, Silva had a 1-3 record and an 8.60 ERA in eight starts before injuring his shoulder and missing most of the remainder of the season.

His contract doesn’t help the situation.  Silva is owed $11.5 million in 2010, another $11.5 million in 2011, and a team option for 2012 worth $12 million with a $2 million buyout.  That’s a lot of money for a guy who apparently isn’t very good.

If I had to defend Silva (which I don’t, but I will), I’d point out that his last two years have been the worst of his career and now that his shoulder is repaired, there’s reason to hope that he’ll rebound to his previous form.  To give you an idea of what Carlos Silva is capable of, his career ERA is 4.72 even after his two disastrous years in 2008-09.

I’d also point out that four times in his eight year career, Silva has pitched 180 or more innings in a season.  So dispite his injury last year, Silva appears to be a workhorse.

Finally, I’d point out that, while Silva stunk up the joint in 2008, he did it for a team that lost 101 games.  Silva may not have helped the cause much, but the Mariners were the worst team in the AL that year, so his record and ERA may be at least partially a result of the team he pitched for.

I’m not sure what critics of the trade expected the Cubs to get in return for Bradley.  At one time early in the off season, I held out hope that Bradley could be included in a package that could possibly net Roy Halladay from the Blue Jays or Brian Roberts and Luke Scott from the Orioles.  That was foolish.  It was nothing more than wishful thinking.

Then I predicted the Cubs would trade Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand.  In some respects, I think that deal had possibilities, but only if the Giants were willing to risk adding Bradley to their clubhouse.  They wisely were not willing to take that risk.

I threw out a couple of other scenarios that were probably just as unrealistic as those I listed above.  It was during the Winter Meetings that I finally realized that there really was no market for Bradley.  Despite being one of the better hitters OBP-wise in the game, the vast majority of teams simply didn’t want to invite his abrasive personality into their clubhouse.  Texas was only willing to bring Bradley back if the Cubs would pay them $16 million to do it.  Tampa Bay had a potential interest, but only if the Cubs took Pat Burrell off their hands (a player the Cubs could not use) and paid several million dollars for the privilege.

During the Winter Meetings, I finally understood just how little leverage Jim Hendry and the Cubs had.  They had painted themselves into a corner and had made it clear to anyone paying attention that they fully intended on trading Bradley, no matter the cost.  No other team had reason to negotiate too hard.  They knew they had the upper hand.  Hendry and the Cubs were negotiating from a distinct position of weakness.

That’s why my opinion is that Hendry did an excellent job of trading Bradley.  Was it a perfect trade?  Absolutely not.   Will Carlos Silva help the 2010 Cubs?  It’s too early to tell.  But given the circumstances, Jim Hendry made the best of a very bad situation.  Of course, it’s important to remember that the “very bad situation” was of Hendry’s own doing, but in the end, he got the best deal he could reasonably get.

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.

Don’t get me wrong.  There’s was a lot of talking.  There were a lot of rumors.  Much of the day was taken up with posturing.  But as far as actual trades or signings go, nothing happened.

At some point around the middle of the day, I had a sudden moment of clarity.  As you’ll recall, the Cubs suspened Milton Bradley in September with just 15 games remaining in the season.  Jim Hendry said he couldn’t tolerate Bradley’s behavior any longer (especially Bradley blaming the fans for the Cubs not winning a World Series in more than 100 years), and he suspended him for the remainder of the season.  Of course, the Cubs continued to pay Bradley (a deal they worked out with the Player’s Union), so the discipline was much more symbolic than substantive.

The writers in Chicago had a heyday with the Bradley suspension.  They celebrated, they rejoiced, and Hendry played right into their hands.  He made it clear from the beginning that Bradley would have to be traded.  He poisoned the waters to the point where he had absolutely no leverage in any potential trade.  He branded Bradley as damaged goods, making him about as unappealing as he could to potential trade partners.

As the Winter Meetings approached, his tune changed a bit.  Hendry started to talk like Bradley might stay with the team.  The Cubs tried to build up Bradley’s value after spending most of the off season destroying his value.  But guess what?  Other teams weren’t falling for it.  They were well aware of the Cubs precarious position with Bradley and they were in no rush to come to the Cubs rescue.

Trade talks with both Tampa Bay and Texas included demands for the Cubs to send several million dollars along with Bradley in any trade.  It was expected that the Cubs would have to eat some of Bradley’s contract, but the $16 million that Texas supposedly demanded was not expected. 

As the Winter Meetings began, rumors started to spread about the Cubs discussing a Bradley trade with three or four teams.  On Tuesday, a mystery team entered the picture.  A deal with an unnamed AL team was “three-quarters” complete.  There appeared to be demand for Bradley.  His stock suddenly seemed to be rising.

Then, it the middle of the day on Wednesday, I had my moment of clarity.  There is no market for Bradley.  I don’t know why it wasn’t clearer to me previously.  I guess I bought into all of the hype and rumors. 

In an effort to trade Bradley, the Cubs spent their time creating rumors, spreading gossip and trying to create a market (or the perception of a market) for Bradley.  It didn’t work.  No one, except the media, bought it.  Teams didn’t come rushing in to try to snag Bradley for fifty cents on the dollar.  They stayed away in droves.  And as the Winter Meeting come to a close today, it appears that nothing has changed.  The Tampa Bay Rays appear to be the only legit potential trade partner for the Cubs, and only then, if the Cubs pay most of the third year of Bradley’s contract.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope that Hendry used the meetings in Indy to set the groundwork for a trade that will be announced in a few days.  But I don’t think that’s the case.   At least for now, it appears that the only way the Cubs are going to get rid of Milton Bradley is to pay another team a lot of money to take him, or simply release him.  I don’t see either of those things happening.  So does that mean Bradley will be back in a Cubs uniform next year?  I can’t imagine, but what other alternative is there?

**********

Perhaps I’m overreacting on there being no apparent movement on the Bradley front.  At least the folks at Canada’s National Post Sports thinks so.  According to a tweet from NPS, “Cubs GM Jim Hendry has at least one firm offer for Milton Bradley, deal will happen Friday.”  NPS goes on to say that the deal is not with Toronto.

I don’t know the good people at NPS, but I’m guessing that this tweet was sent after one too many Labatts or Molsons.  I’ll be happy if it happens, but at this point, I’m not holding my breath.

**********

Rich Harden signed with the Texas Rangers — the same Rangers who don’t have any money — for one-year/$6.5 million.  The deal also includes $3.5 million in incentives.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Cubs re-sign Harden for next year.  The contract he signed with Texas seems reasonable, although the incentives seem a little high to me.  I guess it depends on what he has to do to earn them.

Of course, I go back to the fact thast the Cubs know more about Harden’s health than anyone, so maybe letting him go was the right thing to do.  We’ll see…

**********

The Red Sox have apparently traded third baseman Mike Lowell to the Texas Rangers (the deal is awaiting MLB approval).  The Cubs had toyed with a Bradley for Lowell deal, although Boston did not apparently toy back.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that the Red Sox will be sending $9 million to Texas to complete the trade.  If the Red Sox are willing to pay $9 million to get rid of a player that by all accounts is a great guy, a clubhouse leader, and a productive hitter, what will the Cubs have to pay to move Bradley?

**********

Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times talks about all of the teams that do not have an interest in Bradley.  The Twins are one of the teams that don’t have an interest, at least in part, because in 1996 when the Twins were thinking about drafting Bradley, he said he didn’t want to go there because he thought they were racists.

But the one that really stuck out to me was the unnamed team that had an interest in Bradley until one of the team’s star players emailed the GM for assurances that he would not trade for Bradley.  That’s how much of a cancer this guy really is.

**********

The Cubs have already decided to move their Spring Training home to Naples, Florida.  That, according to Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune.

According to Rogers, the only thing that matters is that Tom Ricketts wants his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.  Rogers bemoans the fact that the Cubs will be throwing away a near fifty year relationship with Mesa and will be turning their backs on the throngs of Cubs fans that flock annually to Arizona for Spring Training. 

“But no matter how many justifications you hear about the Florida move — heavier air for pitchers, a short hop to the Dominican Republic and elsewhere in Latin America, etc. — the reason will be that Ricketts wanted his base of operations in Florida, not Arizona.

Oh, and the developers driving the Naples deal, the Chicago-based Esmark Inc. and the Florida-based Fifth Avenue Advisors, will be sure to add plenty of sweeteners to their offer, including some specifically targeted for the owners. I understand this isn’t criminal activity; it’s business.

But, please. Don’t sell a sweetheart land deal as progress for the Lovable Losers.”

Obviously, Rogers is not happy about the move.

Let’s face it, any decision the Cubs make on Spring Training is going to involve a “sweetheart land deal.”  It just the way these things work.  And as for progress, is staying in Mesa “progress?”  Is staying in Arizona “progress?”  Is there anywhere that the Cubs can move that will be considered “progress?”  No, it’s not about “progress,” however you define it.  It’s about what’s best for the Cubs organization, both from a training facility standpoint and a financial standpoint.

If the Cubs do move to Naples, there will be a lot of handwringing.  Rogers has already started the arguement that players will not want to play for the Cubs if they move to Florida.

“Personally, I wouldn’t mind the move. I have Marco Island connections. But I’m not a 28-year-old free agent with a .295 career batting average and six teams interested in signing me. If I was that guy, I’d be far more likely to have attachments to the Phoenix area than the southwest tip of Florida. Those things matter when you are recruiting players.”

I’m throwing the BS flag.  That’s a bunch of nonesense.  The Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, as well as other teams that train in Florida don’t seem to have a problem getting players.  I don’t think the Cubs will either.

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.

Tampa Bay remains the Cubs most likely trade partner.  But even the Rays are no sure thing.  They are willing to deal Pat Burrell to the Cubs for Bradley, but only if the Cubs are willing to pick up most or all of Bradley’s $12 million salary in 2011.  The Cubs have reportedly offered to pay $5 million of Bradey’s 2011 salary, but that’s not cutting it for the Rays at the moment.

Rays manager Joe Maddon has been quoted as saying that he would welcome Milton Bradley to the team.  He bases his opinion on a lunch he had with Bradley last off season.  Sound familiar?  Didn’t Bradley sell his bill of goods to Jim Hendry at a lunch last off season as well.  Bradley may make a nice lunch companion, but I pity any team that brings him into their locker room.

Even if a deal can be struck, it remains to be seen what the Cubs will do with Pat Burrell.  He has no place on the Cubs (other than perhaps as a very expensive bench bat), and the Cubs are taking a risk trading for him before they have another trade in place to move him.  The Mets were once linked as a possible team that could step in to make this a three-way trade, but that rumor has died down over recent days.

The Texas Ranger are another possible trade partner for the Cubs.  The Rangers are rumored to be offering pitcher Kevin Millwood and his $10 million 2010 salary, but only if the Cubs pick up a substantial portion ($16 million or more) of Bradley’s salary for 2010 and 2011. 

I’m not sure that a trade with Texas is very likely.  Not only are the Cubs loathe to pay another team $16 million or more to take Bradley, but, as Carrie Muskat of MLB.com tweets, Texas isn’t sure they want to take on “that headache” again.  Of course, “that headache’ is Bradley.

The Cubs feel confident (at least in public) that they can move Bradley.  Gordon Wittenmyer of the Sun-Times wrotes that there are two team interested “for sure” (Rays and Rangers), “with at least one more team in the picture.”  Muskat said the same thing a few days ago, but didn’t bother to name the third team.  Now Wittenmyer is doing the same thing.

Wittenmyer goes on to discuss the urgency of the situation.  The Cubs need to move Bradley quickly so they can turn their attention to filling the team’s other needs.

“But whatever they do, they need to move quickly if they want to get the most out of the available trade and free-agent market, specifically, free-agent center fielder Mike Cameron, who is high on their wish list and also drawing interest from other teams.”

I have to admit, I had much higher hopes for a Bradley trade early on that what it looks like the Cubs are going to have to settle for.  I had envisioned a trade with the Orioles where the Cubs would package Bradley a 2-3 prospects for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott.  In hindsight, that was obviously naive.  I thought that teams would be more willing to take on Bradley.  I should have known then that the promise of Bradley’s OBP can not overshadow the near certainty that he is going to misbehave and disrupt his team’s locker room.  Of course, I can be forgiven.  Jim Hendry suffered under this same illusion during last off season.

At this point, the Cubs need to get what they can for Bradley and then move on.  He already played his part in sidetracking the Cubs in 2009.  The Cubs can’t allow him to do the same thing to the 2010 team.

Before the Cubs can concentrate on filling their most pressing needs, they first must trade troubled outfielder Milton Bradley.  According to Paul Sullivan of the Tribune, the Rangers and Rays remain the most likely trade partners for the Cubs. 

It’s unclear who the Cubs would get in return from the Rangers, but recent reports indicate that it could be RHP Kevin Millwood.  Of course, reports also indicate that the Cubs may have to pay $16 million of the $21 million still owed to Bradley in a trade with Texas.  According to Ken Rosenthal and Jon Morosi of FoxSports.com, at the moment, the amount the Cubs are offering to send to the Rangers along with Milton Bradley is inadequate.  Could $16 million really be inadequate?

In a trade with the Rays, the Cubs would likely receive Pat Burrell, but would then likely have to turn around and trade him.  For this reason, a three-team trade makes sense so the Cubs don’t have to take the risk of trading Bradley for Burrell and then being stuck with Burrell.  At the moment, according to the FoxSports.com duo, money is currently the stumbling block in a trade with the Rays.

Here are a few things to watch for at the Winter Meetings:

• Will another team enter the picture in a trade involving Bradley?
• Will Detroit be in the mood to discuss a trade of Curtis Granderson?  If so, will the Cubs be involved in the conversation.
• If Granderson is out of the picture, will the Cubs make a move to sign Mike Cameron, Marlon Byrd, or Rick Ankiel?
• Can Hendry find a way to add a middle of the rotation arm at a reasonable price?
• Will the Cubs make a move affecting their bullpen, or is the pen set for next year?

The Winter Meetings should be exciting.  I’m looking forward to it.

We know (or think we know) that Tampa Bay is one of the three teams.  Is Texas one?  The Rangers were linked to a possible Bradley trade, but only if the Cubs kicked in about $16 million.  Even after those reports, it was reported that Texas was out of the running because they still couldn’t afford Bradley.  Texas is apparently in receivership and can not make any roster moves without the approval of MLB.

Because Carrie didn’t bother to name the three teams interested in Bradley, I’m going to guess that Texas is one of them.  So who’s the third?

Could it be the Giants?  I’m still hoping for an Aaron Rowand for Bradley trade.  No, I don’t think Rowand is the perfect center fielder.  Far from it.  I just think he is the best player the Cubs can get for Bradley without having to pay someone a lot of money to take him.

Maybe the Braves are the third team.  I mentioned a possible Bradley for Derek Lowe trade previously.   You can never have too much pitching and Lowe would be a nice (albeit, expensive) addition to the rotation.

Are the Mets interested?  I doubt it, but they do want to move Luis Castillo and the Cubs need a second baseman.  Even so, I don’t think the Mets are interested and Bradley would definitely not survive in New York.

Who else might have an answer?  Hard to tell at this point, but we should know more next week.  Next time, it would be a lot easier if Muskat just told us.

**********

While in Indy, Hendry will be shopping for a centerfielder, a right handed reliever, and a right handed bat off the bench who can play the outfield.  That, according to our friend Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.  But wait, what about a second baseman.

I’ve noticed this recently that when writers list the Cubs’ needs, they don’t include a second baseman any more.  I don’t know if this is coming from the Cubs front office or if the writers are just making it up.  At the moment, it looks like Jeff Baker is the front runner to play second base, assuming Hendry doesn’t sign a free agent second baseman or trade for one.  That doesn’t seem like such a great plan to me.

Also, I’m guessing that Jeff Gray (obtained from Oakland in the Jake Fox/Aaron Miles trade) will serve as the right handed reliever.  So the bullpen is probably complete.

That leaves a center fielder and a right handed bench bat that can play the outfield.  Curtis Granderson rumors are still floating around.  He would be a good fit for the Cubs, so I’m sure Hendry and Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski will be talking in Indy. 

Mike Cameron is a potential free agent signing, provided he’ll sign a reasonable one-year contract.  Other teams also have an interest in Cameron, so his price may rise out of the Cubs price range.

Marlon Byrd is another name that is being linked to the Cubs.  Even though he had a career year last year with the help of hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo when both were with the Rangers, that doesn’t mean he’ll repeat it in the future.  I hope the Cubs pass on Byrd.

I don’t know who the Cubs might target to be the right handed bench bat who can also play center field, but didn’t they just trade away a guy (Jake Fox) who can fill that need?  Okay, Fox wasn’t the greated fielder, but he can hit. 

Trade activity at this year’s Winter Meetings is supposed to be hot and heavy.  Let’s hope Bradley is moved early in the meetings so Hendry can concentrate on some of the team’s other needs.

Gray is 28-years old and worked out of the bullpen for Oakland.  He compiled an 0-1 record and a 3.76 ERA in 24 relief appearances last year.  Right after the trade, I read that Gray is a hard thrower (92-94 mph), but has control issues.  However, according to Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald, Gray only allowed 4 walks in 26.1 innings.  In fact, in an interview with Bruce Levine from ESPN Chicago, Jim Hendry said “Gray throws a lot of strikes” and compared him to Angel Guzman.  Perhaps the initial reports were wrong?

According to MLB.com’s Jonathon Mayo (via Carrie Muskat of MLB.com), Morla is a 21-year old fireballer whose fastball is far and away his best pitch.  He also sports a decent curve that has improved over time.  Morla is a starter at the moment, but Mayo believes his future is in the bullpen.

Spencer is a powerful 1B-Of.  His offense is his strong suit, although he does have a very good outfield arm.  There was some thought earlier in his career that he might turn out to be a pitcher.  He threw in the 90′s in his few outings for Arizona State before being drafted.

This trade doesn’t excite me or anger me.  The Cubs didn’t lose much and they didn’t gain much.  It felt more like just rearranging the deck chairs.

However, the trade does raise one concern.  Fox appeared to be one of the Cubs better trade chips, especially if the trade was with an AL team.  So what now?  Fox is gone, the Cubs received very little value (at least immediate value), and they still have holes to fill.  I don’t want to make too big of a deal out of this.  It just seemed unnecessary.

Of course, there is another way to look at this.  Jake Fox really didn’t have a position with the Cubs.  His value is his bat, not his glove.  Plus, he’s out of minor league options, so trading him made sense.  I’m just not sure this trade was the right one.

Also, Aaron Miles was taking up roster space and really wasn’t expected to make a contribution to the 2010 team.  In fact, I had suggested trading or releasing him in an earlier post.  So getting anything back in return for Miles was yeoman’s work on Hendry’s part.  Perhaps Fox was the price the Cubs had to pay to move Miles (plus the $1.0 million).  In the end, the Cubs saved $1.7 million.  Not exactly a salary dump, but every little bit helps.

**********

There are some very odd rumors floating around out there on the Internets.  For instance, Evans Clinchy of NESN.com (Red Sox network) is reporting that the Cubs are making a run at Jason Bay.  That’s a new one.

DiamondLeung.com is reporting that La Presna (a newspaper in Nicaragua) is reporting that both the Cubs and Cards are players for Vicente Padilla.  The La Presna report supposedly comes from a source within the agency that represents Padilla.

At this time of year, I guess you get your rumors from where you can, but I don’t think either rumor makes sense.  First off, Jason Bay is a left fielder, a position the Cubs already have covered.  Could bodies be moved?  Sure, but that won’t help the second issue.  The Cubs can not afford Bay.  Various reports have suggested that Bay is looking at a multi-year deal in the $20 million/year range.  Unless Tom Ricketts opens his wallet really wide, the Cubs won’t even be sniffing Jason Bay.

Not that the Cubs couldn’t use another arm in the rotation, but I don’t see them pursuing Padilla.  He’s a good enough pitcher, but Texas traded him to the Dodgers last year in part because he was such a disruptive force in the locker room.  That’s the same Texas Rangers who said what a great guy Milton Bradley was while he was a Ranger.  After the Cubs experiment in bad team chemistry this past year, I don’t think they are going to be signing up Vicente Padilla for round two.

********** 

The Winter Meetings start next week in Indianapolis.  Will the Cubs be players in what is expected to be a very active trade market or will the albatross that is Milton Bradley prevent them from making any moves not involving him?  My hope (and dare I say expectation) is that Jim Hendry is going to be able to get a deal done for Bradley at the Winter Meetings.  My guess is that it will involve three or four teams and will likely require a quiet room and several bottles of scotch.

The most likely trade partner for the Cubs appears to be Tampa Bay.  However, there are a lot of bad contracts out there.  Hopefully, Hendry can find a team with a contract they want to move and be able to make a deal that works for both teams.  In fact, that is my Christmas wish this year.  World peace can wait until next year.  Let’s get the Bradley deal done this Christmas.

“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.

The way it looks right now, trade talks are limited to the Texas Rangers and Tampa Bay Rays.  The Rangers have made it pretty clear that the Cubs will have to pick up $16 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  What is less clear is who the Cubs will get in return for Bradley.  Some reports indicate that the only return would be a couple of middle-of-the-road prospects.

Tampa Bay appears willing to trade Pat Burrell for Milton Bradley, but only if the Cubs pick up all but $9 million of the money still owed to Bradley.  Burrell is owed $9 million in 2010 and Tampa Bay doesn’t want to take on any extra money (even though they’ll have Bradley for two years instead of just one year of Burrell).   

So those are the choices.  Pay Texas $16 million to take Bradley and get two middling prospects in return, or pay Tampa Bay $12 million to take Bradley and get Pat Burrell in return.  Neither option is too exciting.

Tom Rickett’s made it fairly clear in his first press conference as owner of the Cubs that he was not interested in paying another team to take Bradley.  If that still holds true after the reality of the situation is presented to the new Cubs owner, what will they do?

Bradley had a down  year offensively in 2009, but none other than Bill James expects him to bounce back in 2010.  Would the Cubs actually entertain the idea of bringing Bradley back?  How will his Cubs teammates react if Bradley suits up for the Cubs next year?  How will Bradley react to playing in Wrigley Field again?  How will the fans react when Bradley runs out to right field for the first time in 2010?

Obviously, I can’t give definitive answers to any of these questions, but I suspect the answers would not be good for the Cubs, for Bradley, or for his teammates.  I also seriously doubt that Cubs fans (especially those that sit in the right field bleachers) will simply forgive and forget.  I don’t see a Bradley return in 2010 turning out good for anyone.

And yet, what is Jim Hendry supposed to do if the best deal he can get is to pay another team $12 million to take Bradley in exchange for a player the Cubs can’t use?  Ricketts may not want to spend a lot of money to unload Bradley, but he might be better off spending even more money to get rid of Bradley AND get a player the Cubs can use.

Would San Francisco reconsider taking Bradley for Aaron Rowand if the Cubs sweetened the pot?  Could a deal be worked out with Detroit to take on one of their bad contracts (i.e. Magglio Ordonez) if the Cubs were willing to kick in a lot of money?  Who else would like to get Bradley for free (or close to it) in exchange for the Cubs taking on one of their bad contracts?

The Cubs have not done themselves any favors with the way they have handled the situation with Bradley, but I hope the current situation shows those defenders of Bradley what a real pariah he really is.  No one wants the guy unless he’s almost free, and even then, most teams still aren’t interested. 

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Tom Ricketts and Jim Hendry sit down to discuss this situation.  What must it be like to ask your boss for $12 – $16 million to fix a problem you caused?  What must it be like to have to pay another team $12 – $16 million to take one of your employees off your hands?  Things could get ugly.

Whatever the Cubs decide to do, I hope they do it sooner rather than later.  Jim Hendry and the Cubs front office have already spent too much time and energy on Bradley.  It’s time to bite the bullet and move on.