Derrek Lee continued his hot hitting going 7-9 in the series with the Dodgers.  In the first game of the series, Lee drove in all threre of the Cubs runs on an RBI single and a two-run homer.  Lee has now pushed his season hitting line up to .246/.352/.391 with 6 homeruns and 23 RBI.

The Cubs pitching was also very good during the three-game set with the Dodgers.  The Cubs staff managed to shut out LA in the two Cubs victories and only gave up 8 hits in the those two games.  Dempster got the victory in game one and Ted Lilly was credited with the win in game two.

However, not everything is peaches and cream for the Cubs.  First, Aramis Ramirez is suffering from an injured thumb and missed the series with LA.  He had a cortisone shot on Thursday and it is hoped that he is ready for the first game of the series with the Cardinals on Friday at Wrigley.  But even getting Ramirez back in the line-up is not such a great thing.  He is hitting just .160/.225/.269 on the year and he has not shown any signs of breaking out of his season-long slump.

Carlos Zambrano was taken to the hospital yesterday after complaining of severe stomach pain.  Doctors feared he was suffering from appendicitis, but tests came back negative.  There was no word on what may have caused his lower intestinal discomfort nor when he might be ready to play again.

Jeff Baker got the start at third base on Thursday, but had to leave the game in the eighth inning when he completely lost sight in his right eye.  That according to Carrie Muskat on MLB.com via Twitter.  I’m no doctor, but that sounds pretty serious.  Let’s hope it is nothing too bad and that Baker regains sight in his right eye very soon.

UPDATE: Jeff Baker saw the Cubs opthamologist following yesterday’s game and was diagnosed with an ocular migraine.  The report I read didn’t say if his vision had returned or if he would be ready to play this weekend.

**********

What a weird year it has been in Major League Baseball.  Just look at the standings.  At the moment, the Reds are in first place in the NL Central with St. Louis trailing by a game.  That’s not a complete shock.  The Reds were picked by some prognosticators before the season to be a pretty good team.  I, on the other hand, said I didn’t think they would be very good and I still expect them to fall off the pace.

In the NL East, although the Phillies are leading the division, only 3.0 games separate the Phils from the last place Nationals.  Atlanta has struggled, but is just 1.5 games back of the Phils, with the Mets pulling into third place, 2.0 games out of first place.

The Padres, who were projected to be the worst (or at least one of the worst) team(s) in the NL currently have the best record in the league.  Heading into the weekend, they have a record of 28-19  and lead the NL West.  The Dodgers are 2.0 games behind the Padres and the Rockies are 3.0 back.

In the AL East, most people thought Tampa Bay would be good, but I’m not sure they thought the Rays would be as good as they have been so far this year.  With a record of 33-15, they are 4.5 games ahead of the Yankees and 6.5 games up on the third place Red Sox.  Even Toronto, who started quick out of the gate, has a record of 27-22.  With that record, the Blue Jays could be leading either the AL Central or West.

In the AL Central, Minnesota leads the division by 1.5 games over Detroit.  The White Sox, who are seven games under .500, are in third place, followed by the Royals and the hapless Indians.

The AL West is all topsy turvy.  Most “experts” thought the AL West would be a race between the Angels and the Mariners.  At the moment, the Angels and Mariners are fighting it out for third place in the division.  LA is 23-26 while Seattle has a record of 18-28.  The class of the division at the moment is the Texas Rangers who sport a 26-21 record.  They are currently 1.5 games up on Oakland.

I’m sticking by the picks I made earlier in the year.  Even so, I have to admit that the way that some teams are playing — both good and bad — has been a surprise.  I guess that why they bother to play the games.

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer
• What Can You Get For $140 Million? Starting Pitchers

My theory going into this series of posts was that by virtue of having the third highest payroll in all of baseball, the Cubs should have one of the best players at almost every position.   Of those players, two-to-four should be perennial all-stars.

I recognize that having one of the best players in baseball at almost every position is expensive.  That’s why I think a high payroll team still needs to have one or two young, inexpensive players.  However, those players should not just be roster filler.  They may be young and inexpensive, but they should also be extremely good.  An example of such a player would be Dustin Pedroia with the Red Sox.  David Wright of the Mets was also this type of player a few years ago.  Geovany Soto may be such a player today, although the jury is still out.

To determine if the Cubs roster meets this criteria, in each post I ranked the Cubs players against the starters from each of the five other highest payroll teams.  Then, I considered whether or not the Cubs player was among the top players at their position.  Here’s how the Cubs players ranked against the players at the same position for the other five highest payroll teams:

• First Base — Derrek Lee (5 out of 6)
• Second Base — Mike Fontenot (6 out of 6)
• Shortstop — Ryan Theriot (4 out of 6)
• Third Base — Aramis Ramirez (3 out of 6)
• Catcher — Geovany Soto (2 out of 6)
• Left Field — Alfonso Soriano (3 out of 6)
• Center Field — Kosuke Fukudome (4 out of 6)
• Right Field — Milton Bradley (4 out of 6)
• Closer — Kevin Gregg (5 out of 6)
• Starting Pitchers — Carlos Zambrano (5 out of 30)

                                    Ted Lilly (12 out of 30)
                                    Rich Harden (13 out of 30)
                                    Ryan Dempster (17 out of 30)                                            
                                    Randy Wells (18 out of 30)

Kind of confusing, isn’t it?  I know.  One of the main reasons is because my hypothesis was wrong.  I thought that comparing the Cubs’ roster to the rosters of the five other highest payroll teams would work because I incorrectly assumed that the other five highest payroll teams would have some of the best players in baseball at each position.  Having looked at every position from each of these teams, it’s obvious that these other five teams do not have one of the top players at each position.  Each of these teams is built differently, but none of the teams has been able to build a starting line-up made up of some of the best players at each position, not even the Yankees.

Although my hypothesis was wrong, I’m not ready to give up on my belief that the third highest spending team in baseball should have some of the top players in the game on their roster.   So, do the Cubs have some of the best players in the game on their roster?

Our research showed that two Cubs, Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez, were among the best at their position in all of baseball.  Alfonso Soriano was close when he was signed, although he has fallen off recently.  Soriano gets a bad rap from people who are quick to forget what a terrific hitter he was earlier in his career.  If he can regain some of his previous hitting ability, Soriano can still be a top left fielder.

Geovany Soto is a tough call.  Was the 2008 version of Soto the real deal, or was the 2009 version the one we’ll see in the future?  Either way, I can’t fault the Cubs for handing him the starting job in 2008.  He was one of those young, inexpensive players I talked about previously.  It remains to be seen which Soto shows up in 2010.

The Cubs pitching staff also qualifies as among the best in baseball.  The real weakness is that 1) the Cubs don’t have a true ace, and 2) the pitching staff as currently constituted will not be as good in 2010 as it was in 2009.  The loss of Rich Harden and Ted Lilly’s inability to pitch for the first month or more of 2010 will take its toll on the Cubs.

What about the other positions?  Starting Fukudome and Bradley in center and right field respectively was uninspired.  Acquiring Bradley was a clear mistake that forced Fukudome to move from right field, where he was good, to center field, where he wasn’t so good.  Neither player qualifies as one of the best at their position, making the Cubs outfield one of the weakest among contending teams.

Ryan Theriot straddles the line between mediocre and poor among shortstops.  He combines the ability to be nothing special on defense with a below average OPS+.  The Cubs need a top shortstop and Theriot doesn’t qualify.

Mike Fontenot is among the worst second basemen in baseball.  He is not the type of player a club with a $140 million payroll should have in their starting lineup.  Even so, as of this writing, the Cubs appear ready to give Fontenot another shot in 2010, unless Jeff Baker, a more versatile but equally as bad second baseman, can unseat him.

Finally, the Cubs had one of the weaker closers in baseball as their closer in 2009.  There really was nothing in Kevin Gregg’s history that indicated that he could be a top-notch closer.  However, he was relatively inexpensive, so Jim Hendry signed him and hoped for the best. 

As I conducted my analysis, I kept coming back to this last statement.  Jim Hendry has a history of signing players and hoping for the best.  He signed Milton Bradley to be a middle-of-the-order run producer, even though Bradley had never shown the ability to fill that role before.  That fact, and Bradley’s past behavior should have given Hendry pause.  But instead, Hendry signed Bradley and hoped for the best.

He signed Gregg and hoped for the best, despite the fact that there really was no evidence in his past history that indicated that Gregg could be a reliable closer.  It should have been clear that Gregg was not the type of closer a contending team would want on their roster, yet Hendry took the leap of faith.

Finally, there was nothing in Mike Fontenot’s background that should have indicated to anyone that he could be a successful everyday second baseman on a contending team, yet Jim Hendry handed him the job and kept his fingers crossed.  The unnecessary risk back fired badly and he’s done nothing this off season to correct the problem.

The Cubs have not done a good job of spending their money.  They have the third highest payroll in baseball, yet they have a roster that is more reminiscent of a middle-of-the-pack team.   And it’s Jim Hendry’s job to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I’ve been a big supporter of Hendry’s over the years.  However, after taking an in-depth look at the roster, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that he has not done a good job of building this team.  A change in perspective is needed, and I don’t think that change can take place by keeping the same people in their current positions.

The Cubs needed a change in culture a few years ago.  They needed to stop thinking of themselves as small spenders.  They are a large market team with one of the highest revenue sources in the game, and they needed to start acting like one.  That happened under the direction of John McDonough and Jim Hendry.  The Cubs also rebuilt their farm system under the direction of Jim Hendry.

Now, another change is needed.  The Cubs need to view themselves as players for most every big name free agent.  They need to be viewed as a likely destination for top players when they are put on the trading block.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Hendry is the man for the job.  Although he has shown a capacity to trade for players that are being dumped by their current team, he has not shown much ability or willingness to trade his own players or top prospects. 

The Curtis Granderson situation earlier this off season was a good example.  Despite his shortcomings, Granderson is considered one of the top center fielders in baseball.  He would have been a perfect fit for the Cubs.  Even so, Hendry was unwilling to get too deeply involved.  Detroit wanted top prospects in exchange for Granderson.  The Yankees were willing to deal their prospects in exchange for a proven commodity.  Hendry refused to include the Cubs top prospects in any sort of deal.  As he has done in the past, he has deemed some unproven, but highly regarded prospects as untouchable.  This approach cost the Cubs a difference maker in center field and all they have to hang their hats on is the potential of some of their young players.

The botton line to all of this is that the Cubs need to get better.  The need to spend their money to build a perennial contender.  They need to change the way they build their roster.  As much as I like and respect Jim Hendry, I’m not convinced that he’s the guy to make the shift in approach and get the job done.

My opinion is that the Cubs, by virtue of having the third highest payroll in baseball, should have have some of the top players in the game on their team.  Year-in and year-out the Cubs should have five or six of the top position players in their starting line-up, three or four all-stars, and a couple of younger, less expensive players who are capable and on the verge of stardom.

In this series of posts, I’m examining the Cubs roster to see if they are meeting this expectation.  I’m analyzing the roster position by position.  To read previous posts, check out these links:

• What Can You Get For $140 Million? (Introduction and Methodology)
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: First Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Second Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Shortstop
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Third Base
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Catcher
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Left Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Center Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Right Field
• What Can You Get For $140 Million?: Closer

Today, I’d like to look at starting pitchers.  Today’s analysis is going to be a little different than previous posts.  Because we will be looking at 30 starting pitchers rather than just six position players or closers, there won’t be room to rank each player based on stats from the previous two years.  Instead, I’ll compile the stats behind the scenes, and list the overall rankings here.

Also, although I’ll be considering 2008 stats (as well as career stats), I won’t be ranking the pitchers for 2008 as I have done in  previous posts.  The overall ranking will be for 2009, although again, previous and career stats will be considered.

 When it comes to ranking starting pitchers, there’s a lot of subjectivity that comes into play.  For instance, one pitcher may have better stats than another, but they may not have been as consistent as another pitcher or haven’t been performing at as high of a level.  A lot of things go into ranking the pitchers and I’ll be the first to admit that my own biases come into play.

Also, keep in mind that the ranking is based on the start of the 2009 season.  So a pitcher that had a teriffic 2009 may not rank as highly as you might think.  Stats from 2009 are considered, but they are discounted a bit since the GM could not have known going into the season how well (or poorly) the pitcher would do.

With all of this in mind, here is how I ranked the starting pitchers for the six highest payroll teams:

1. C.C. Sabathia (Yankees)
2. Johan Santana (Mets)
3. Jon Lester (Red Sox)
4. Josh Beckett (Red Sox)
5. Carlos Zambrano (Cubs)
6. Cole Hamel (Phillies)
7. A.J. Burnett (Yankees)
8. J.A. Happ (Phillies)
9. Andy Pettite (Yankees)
10. Daisuke Matsuzaka (Red Sox)
11. Justin Verlander (Tigers)
12. Ted Lilly (Cubs)
13. Rich Harden (Cubs)
14. Joba Chamberlain (Yankees)
15. Joe Blanton (Phillies)
16. Tim Wakefield (Red Sox)
17. Ryan Dempster (Cubs)
18. Randy Wells (Cubs)
19. Rick Porcello (Tigers)
20. Chien-Ming Wang (Yankees)
21. Jamie Moyer (Phillies)
22. John Maine (Mets)
23. Brad Penny (Red Sox)
24. Brett Myers (Phillies)
25. Edwin Jackson (Tigers)
26. Jeremy Bonderman (Tigers)
27. Armando Galarrraga (Tigers)
28. Mike Pelfrey (Mets)
29. Tim Redding (Mets)
30. Oliver Perez (Mets)

Space prohibits me from defending or explaining each pitcher and their place in the rankings, but let me explain a few.  At the top of the list, there is a good argument to move Jon Lester up to the top and move Johan Santana down a few spots.  I was satisfied that Sabathia belonged at the top of the list, but I struggled a little with Santana.  I think some people would have moved Beckett ahead of Lester as well.  Wherever you put these pitchers, I think it is clear that they will end up at or near the top.

I’m afraid I might be letting my Cubs fan side come out a little too much by ranking Zambrano ahead of Hamel, especially following Hamel’s 2008 performance.  I think there is a strong argument to move Hamel and J.A. Happ above Zambrano, but in the end I decided to stick with Big Z.

Some will say that Harden is ranked too high while others will say he is too low.  I think Harden is a heck of a pitcher.  When he’s healthy, he’s one of the best.  Unfortunately, he has had a difficult time staying healthy and he has a habit of not pitching very deep into a game.  If Harden would start pitching deeper in games, I’d gladly move him up in the rankings.  However, at least based on 2009, it appears that he needs to stay at around five innings per game to stay healthy.

Is Tim Wakefield ranked too high?  I’ve always really liked Wakefield.  I think he’s one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball.  He’s consistent year-in and year-out.  Because of that, I think he gets taken for granted.

Did I rank Randy Wells too low?  Based on his 2009 performance, I did.  However, as a rookie heading into 2009, not a lot was known about him.  Was 2009 the real deal?  We’ll have to wait and see.  For now, I don’t think he deserves to be ranked any higher.

The bottom third of the list can probably be flip-flopped a lot of ways.  One thing is certain though.  The back end of the starting rotations for the Tigers and Mets is really weak.

Even when you consider all of the other starting pitchers in baseball, the Cubs look pretty good.  Zambrano is not a true ace, but I think it’s safe to say that he is one of the top 20-25 pitchers in baseball.  Should the Cubs have a true ace?  Yeah, probably.  But I’ll save that argument for another day. 

Bottom Line: When it comes to starting pitching, the Cubs did pretty well.  They have one of the top five starters (of the six teams surveyed) and their other starters all rank in the middle ten.  Pitching was a strong suit for the Cubs in 2009.  In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that the Cubs starting pitching staff helped them to a winning season despite the offensive woes the team experienced throughout the year.

Things are not looking quite so rosy for 2010.  Rich Harden is no longer with the club and Ted Lilly will miss a month or more at the beginning of the season while he recovers from shoulder surgery.  In addition to counting on Randy Wells to repeat his 2009 performance, the Cubs are expecting some or all of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, Jeff Samardjzia, and Mike Parisi to step up and fill a role in the starting rotation.

For our purposes, it’s safe to say that the Cubs had one of the stronger rotations in baseball in 2009.  At least as far as the starting rotation goes, the Cubs spent their money wisely.

As Cubs fans, we are looking at a boring remainder of the off season.  The big free agent signing (i,e., Marlon Byrd) is behind us and now it’s just a waiting game.  We also are having to deal with the fact that the Cubs were not a very good team in 2009 and this off season hasn’t really made them any better.  So while we’re bored, we have that to deal with.

I have to admit that I am surprised that the Cubs didn’t do more to improve this off season.  With a new owner coming in and Jim Hendry’s job being on the line, I thought the Cubs would make more of a splash.  The free agent market was pretty thin, but there were always trades to be made.  Apparently the Cubs front office had other plans.

As it turns out, the way that Cubs owner Tom Ricketts structured the loans he used to purchase the team may be at least in part to blame for the new regime not making a big splash.  According to a report in Investment News, the Ricketts attracted a number of institutional investors (insurance companies, pension funds, banks) who normally don’t invest in sports franchises to privide short-term financing.  These investors tend to be more conservative and it appears that the Cubs will have to remain conservative with their payroll in order to keep those investors happy.

I suppose that “conservative” is a relative term in this case.  The Cubs payroll was the fourth highest in MLB last year and will remain in the neighborhood of $140 million this year.  Even so, considering the revenue generated by the franchise, having a $140 million player payroll is not outrageous.

So it appears that it may be a while before anything very exciting happens with the Cubs.  Long-term contracts are in place, many with no-trade clauses, others simply untradeable.  In the immortal words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (I’m paraphrasing), you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com provides a glimmer of light in an otherwise murky off season.  Rosenthal predicts that Ben Sheets will eventually sign with the Cubs.  Considering the Cubs starting rotation as it now stands, that is good news.  With a starting three of Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Well to start the season, the Cubs rotation could use some help.  Lefty Ted Lilly will be on the shelf to start the season, so the final two rotation slots will be filled by some combination of Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia.  Sheets would be a welcome addition indeed.

But is Rosenthal’s rumor/prediction really realistic?  Last I heard, Sheets and his agent were looking for a contract that would pay the oft-injured starter $12 million per year.  When he’s right, Sheets is worth ever penny of that.  But after coming off of surgery and a missed season in 2009, he’s a big question mark.  I don’t expect the Cubs to get involved unless his asking price comes way down.  And if it does, the Cubs will certainly not be his only suitor.

Reports like Rosenthal’s probably don’t hold much water, but at least they do brighten up the dark winter a little bit and give us something to talk about.  So reporters, keep the predictions and unsubstantiated rumors coming.  We still have two months to go before Spring Training.

**********

The Hall of Fame will announce their 2010 inductees tomorrow.  Good Luck to Andre Dawson.  I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

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.

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.

Joel Sherman of the New York Post writes that Texas continues to be a possible landing spot for Bradley, but only if the Cubs pick up a “sizable portion” of Bradley’s contract.  Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated suggests that the Cubs may have to eat $16 million of the $21 million owed to Bradley over the next two years.  Is that really the best the Cubs can get for Bradley?

Bringing Bradley back next year seems highly unlikely.  According Heyman, Many Cubs players, including Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Zambrano, won’t even talk to Bradley.  Others reportedly applauded when it was announced that Bradley had been suspended late last season. 

Early in the week there was a rumor of a three-team trade that would send Bradley to Toronto, Lyle Overbay to the Mets, and second baseman Luis Castillo to the Cubs.  However, according to Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune (writing in the Boston Herald), Toronto wants no part of Bradley.  Who can blame them?

Most reports seem to consider Texas, Tampa Bay, and San Francisco as the most likely trade partners for Bradley.  There’s been a lot of talk about how much of Bradley’s contract the Cubs would have to eat in a trade with the Rangers, but virtually nothing has been said about who the Cubs might receive in return.  I had previously suggested that a Bradley for Michael Young trade might make sense from a financial perspective for the cash-strapped Rangers, but that doesn’t appear to be the deal the Rangers are interested in making.

Trade rumors with Tampa Bay and San Francisco involve one bad contract for another.  With Tampa Bay, the trade rumor involves Bradley’s remaining two-years at a total of $21 million for Pat Burrell’s one remaining year and $9 million.  Obviously, the Cubs would have to kick in some money.

The Bradley-to-San-Francisco rumor involves sending Bradley’s remaining contract to the Giants for Aaron Rowand’s remaining three years and $36 million.

Of the three possibilities, the rumored deal with San Francisco makes the most sense to me.  Assuming the Cubs would not have to kick in any money, they would be taking on an additional year and an additional $16 million in payroll obligation, but at least they’ll be getting a player they can use.  With Texas and Tampa Bay, their are either just paying another team to take Bradley off their hands or they are taking on a player (Burrell) that they can’t use (or both).  Adding Aaron Rowand to the line-up isn’t the perfect solution, but it is better than the other rumors currently floating around.

Whatever happens, Jim Hendry would be well-advised to make it happen fast.  Bradley is and will continue to be a distraction until the Cubs are rid of him.  There will be no “perfect deals” coming along that will allow the Cubs to dump Bradley.  What they need to do is choose the least bad option and move on.

UPDATE: Well, you can cross the Giants off the list of potential trade partners for Milton Bradley.  In an article by Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune, Giants GM Brian Sabean said:

“A deal like that? For a player like that?” Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. “No. Is that succinct enough? I don’t know that addition by subtraction would work. Smarter people than us have tried that.”

Oh well.  Never say never, but it looks like any potential deal with San Francisco is dead.

Sullivan’s article also says that for the privilege of paying the Rangers $16 million or so to take Milton Bradley, the Cubs would receive a couple of unnamed, mid-level prospects to the Cubs.  Ouch…

***********

Tim Dierkes at MLBTradeRumors.com has an interesting post up concerning where he thinks the top 50 free agents will end up this off season.  Of particular interest is that he thinks Rich Harden will sign with the Red Sox and the Cubs will sign Billy Wagner.

In his post, Dierkes suggests that Boston will take a risk and sign Harden to a one-year, $7 million contract.  He compares the signing to what Boston did last year when they signed Brad Penney and John Smoltz.

I believe that now that Ted Lilly is a bit of a question mark for the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration.  If he is looking for another deal in the $7 million range, I think he’ll accept.  However, I believe he is looking for something closer to $10 million per year and would naturally prefer a multi-year deal. 

If he hits the open market (the Cubs have until December 1 to offer arbitration), Harden will initially hold out for a multi-year contract.  If one is not forthcoming, he may agree to a one-year deal, but I have to believe it is going to be closer to $10 million than $7 million.  So if Tim is right and Boston signs Harden, it will have to be late in the off season when Harden has tested all of the other options. 

For what it’s worth, Harden says he really liked Chicago and his agent, Arn Tellem, says Harden is 100% healthy.  Even so, Harden’s injury history does not inspire confidence.  His is an interesting case, particularly in an ecomony where most teams don’t seem to be open to taking on too much risk unless the price is right.

On Billy Wagner, Tim says:

37.  Billy Wagner – Cubs.  The Cubs don’t have much payroll space, and they may prefer to go with Carlos Marmol as their closer.  Then again, they wouldn’t do so a year ago when Marmol was coming off a good season.  The Cubs could offer Wagner a chance to close, as could the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Angels, and Braves.  Even Wagner’s old teams, the Phillies and Astros, have back-end bullpen concerns.

Tim makes a great point here.  If the Cubs weren’t willing to hand the closer’s job to Marmol in 2009 after he had a really good 2008, why would they in 2010 after a 2009 season that saw Marmol lead all NL relievers in walks and hit batters?  Of course, Wagner’s contract expectations remain an issue.  He earned $10.5 million in 2010 and will likely be looking for a two or three year contract with a similar annual salary.  That’s a little rich for the Cubs’ blood.

Of course, this may be a moot point.  The Red Sox could offer Wagner arbitration and he could accept.  It seemed like a long-shot a week ago, but Wagner says that he enjoyed his time in Boston and his agent says he would possibly be open to accepting an arbitration offer.  As part of their trade with the Mets for Wagner, the Red Sox agreed not to exercise Wagner’s $8 million option for 2010, but they are free to offer the lefty arbitration.

Whatever happens, I strongly feel that the Cubs must address the closer role if they want to be a legitimate World Series contender in 2010.  If Wagner is not the answer, who is?

I previously mentioned Huston Street as a possibility.  He will receive an increase in arbitration from his 2009 salary of $4.5 million.  The Rockies don’t want to deal him, but may have to consider a trade in order to reach their budget goals.  Street would be one of their more marketable players and the Cubs would be one of several teams interested in the closer.

Another possibility is Francisco Cordero of the Reds.  The Reds are reportedly going to have to cut their budget from $71 million in 2009 to $65 to $70 million in 2010.  That might not seem like a big cut, but the Reds have contractual obligations totaling $66 million to just 10 players.  They are going to have to make some trades just to be able to field a full team.

Cordero is one of their most expensive players.  He’s signed through 2011 for $12 million per year with another $12 million club option for 2012 ($1 million buyout).  That’s expensive, but there are unfortunately no good, cheap options for the Cubs.

 **********

Ken Rosenthal reports that the Cubs are nearing a deal to re-sign John Grabow.  Rosenthal says the deal could be for two years.  It could also be for 100 years, but probably not. 

**********

The GM meetings end today.  Will Milton Bradley be traded?  More tomorrow…

When the 2009 season ended and Cubs fans looked toward 2010, one thing we could be fairly certain about was the team’s starting rotation.  Even though the Cubs don’t have a true ace (Carlos Zambrano is not a true ace), we were comfortable with the four guys we were certain would be in the starting rotation.  Of course, those guy are Zambrano, Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells.  The fifh spot is a question mark, but the Cubs have three guys who all can do a credible job in that role.

But with Lilly’s surgery, the starting rotation is suddenly a question mark.  If Lilly can return to the rotation in April and pitch effectively, no problem.  But at this point, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to count on that possibility.  The Cubs really need to have a “Plan B” in place in case Lilly has any setbacks.

Re-signing Rich Harden is one option.   Harden earned $7 million last year and would likely see a raise to the $9 or $10 million range in arbitration.  Although Harden filed for free agency yesterday (along with Reed Johnson), the Cubs still have until December 1 to decide whether or not they want to offer him arbitration.

There’s never been any question about Harden’s stuff.  When he’s healthy, he’s lights out.  But he has had his struggles staying healthy.  And even though he was pretty healthy in 2009, he still only averaged just under 5.2 innings per game.  That can be really hard on the bullpen.

For what it’s worth, the Bill James Handbook (as provided by AnotherCubsBlog.com) projects Harden to post a 3.33 ERA next year.  Unfortunately, he’s also projected to start just 24 games (two fewer than in 2009) and pitch just 135 innings (six fewer than in 2009).  That’s a slightly higher average innings/game, than he achieved in 2009, but not by much.

Of course, keep in mind that these are just projections.  Bill James does an incredible job, but even he’s not foolproof.

There are other options.  Rather than spending $10 million +/- on Harden, the Cubs could spend less on a free agent like Randy Wolf.  Wolf earned a guaranteed $5 million last year along with up to $3 million in incentives.  Wolf pitched 214.0 innings last year (the most in his career), posting an 11-7 record and a 3.23 ERA.  While I think the Cubs could save some money signing Wolf (I’m guessing he’ll sign for $6.5 – $7.5 million), Wolf may insist on a multi-year deal.  I would counsel against that.

Of course, there’s always Ben Sheets.  If you’ve read this blog any length of time, you know that I think someone is going to get a great deal on Ben Sheets this year.  It might as well be the Cubs.  Sheets is coming off a year away from baseball recovering from surgery, so he should come fairly cheaply.  He also has rested for an entire year, so he should be good to go in Spring Training.  Sheets is a buy low/high potential guy who could pay dividends for the Cubs.

All indications are that Lilly will be back in April and should be fully recovered.  Even if he can’t come back until May 1, the Cubs should be fine.  They don’t need a fifth pitcher until mid-April, and they have the arms to fill in for a short time.  But if Lilly is not ready to come back full strength by May, the Cubs are going to be in a lot of trouble, especially if any of their other pitchers suffer an injury (which is not unheard of).

Jim Hendry needs to add “find a good deal on a starting pitcher” to his off season to-do list.  The Cubs can not afford to take a chance now that Ted Lilly is a question mark.  Plus, as they say, you can never have too much pitching.

**********

Dave Kaplan from Chicago Tribune Live! and WGN Radio is not a fan of Carlos Zambrano.  He has been critical of Big Z on several occasions and he’s fired another salvo at the big right hander:

“Look, I am not a Zambrano fan because he is lazy and he doesn’t get the most out of his abilities.”

Harsh, sure, but is it undeserved?

In my opinion, Kaplan seems to be harder on Zambrano that most other players.  But I think that might be because he sees in Zambrano a guy with tremendous talent who doesn’t work hard enough or care enough to reach his full potential.  It also doesn’t help that the Cubs signed Zambrano to a 5-year/$91.5 million contract in 2008 and he has underperformed ever since.

I think it is time for the Cubs and Cubs fans to stop expecting Zambrano to be the ace of the staff.  Realistically, unless he improves unexpectedly, Z is probably a number two or three starter.  He’s still a good pitcher who does a credible job, but it’s probably time to stop counting on him becoming one of the elite pitchers in the game.

In his latest blog post, Kaplan takes a look as Zambrano and compares him to free agent pitcher John Lackey.  Take a look at his post for the specifics, but the take away is that Lackey is a much better pitcher than Zambrano, despite what their contracts might say.

You may recall that Lilly spent time on the DL this past year due to inflammation and pain in his left shoulder.  While on the DL, Lilly had his knee scoped because it was felt that the partially torn meniscus in his knee was altering his mechanics, causing undue pressure on his shoulder.  Lilly came back from the DL and pitched effectively.  The plan following the season was for Lilly to rest his shoulder.  Unfortunately, rest didn’t seem to be enough, as Lilly’s shoulder continued to bother him.  He spoke to the team and to doctors, and the decision was made to have the surgery now.

Following the surgery, Lilly met with the press.  According to Bruce Miles at the Daily Herald, Lilly said:

“The idea is maybe to start throwing in four months or so,” he said. “A lot of that is going to be dictated on just how the rehab goes. That can change one way or another. My intention is to get back as soon as I can without setting myself back.”

After Lilly spoke, Jim Hendry spoke to reporters and said:

“We haven’t made any decisions yet on who’s coming back or not from the club we ended the season with,” Jim said. “This wouldn’t alter our plans about adding another starter because Lew Yocum is one of the best in the world. If he felt that…if the rehab went according to plan, the way Ted goes about his business, that there’s a good possibility Ted will be pitching in April. We certainly don’t want to take that spot away from Ted if he’s ready.”

So, if everything goes according to plan, Lilly should start throwing in four months and should be ready to pitch in April.  Of course, how often do things go according to plan when it comes to injuries to Cubs pitchers?

With Lilly on the shelf for now and potentially not ready to pitch when the 2010 season begins, should Jim Hendry look to add another arm to the starting rotation?  If so, should that arm be free agent Rich Harden?  I have to believe that Lilly’s surgery has increased the odds that the Cubs will offer Harden arbitration.  This should be interesting.

**********

During organizational meetings in Mesa, AZ, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts spent time scouting potential Spring Training facility sites with officials from Mesa.  Ricketts previously visited Naples, FL to scout locations and meet with potential investors in the Spring Training complex development.

Ricketts and the rest of the Cubs front office are expected to discuss their Spring Training facility options at the organizational meetings.  The Cubs must decide by early next year if they are going to opt out of their agreeement to train at HoHoKam Park.  If they do (and they almost certainly will), they will need to have a plan in place for where they will train beginning in 2012 and beyond.

I’m still rooting for Naples, but I think the odds are stacked against them.  The Cubs are fixtures in the Cactus League and Arizona officials want to make sure that they keep the team (and their money) in the state for years to come.

**********

With the end of the World Series last night (Congrats to the Yankees!), the off season officially begins.  Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter did a terrific job of detailing what we can all expect in the coming weeks and explaining the rules surrounding free agency, arbitration offers, etc.   It’s a great read to prepare for what should be a very interesting off season.

Today, I want to pull it all together, make some predictions on what the Cubs will do to build their 2010 team, and list what I think the Cubs 25 man  roster will look like on opening day.

**********

I don’t expect the Cubs to make too many moves this offseason.  While I would love to see a big blockbuster trade and/or free agent signing, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. 

In the infield, I can see a free agent signing (although not a blockbuster) to fill the hole at second base.  A lot has been said about Jeff Baker taking over second base, but I don’t think the Cubs view him as a starter.  I personally would like to see him used as a super-sub, since he can play several positions.

We can be pretty sure that the second base job will not be given to Mike Fontenot or Aaron Miles.  Fontenot had his chance and didn’t take advantage of it.  Miles not only won’t be the starter at second, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs simply released him. 

There is a chance that Andres Blanco could take over at second.  Or, the Cubs may move Ryan Theriot to second and have Blanco play short.  I like Blanco and there’s part of me that would like to see him get a shot at a starting job.  Unfortunately for Andres, I don’t think that is going to happen.

That leaves a free agent, but who is it going to be?  I expect the Cubs to test the waters with Chone Figgins, but I don’t think they’ll get past preliminary discussions.  Figgins is coming off of a good year and his price is going to be too high.

Then I think they will turn their attention to Orlando Hudson.  Hudson made $3.38 million on a one-year contract last year while hitting .283/.357/.417 with 9 homeruns and 62 RBI.  However, he fell out of favor with the Dodgers at the end of the year and was replaced by Ronnie Belliard.  Both players are free agents, but I expect LA to re-sign Belliard and let Hudson walk. 

The Cubs will also probably take a look at Akinori Iwamura.  I expect the Rays to buy him out rather than exercising his $4.25 million option next year.  He’s an interesting player and I expect the Cubs to “kick the tires.” 

For what it’s worth, I think Iwamura would be a good fit for the Cubs.  He can hit at the top of the order, although he’s not a speed demon.  In three years with the Rays, Iwamura has hit .281/.354/.393.  For my money, Iwamura, who will be 31 years old next season, is the Cubs’ best option at second base.  That’s partly because Iwamura is also an accomplished third basemen, which will come in handy when/if Aramis Ramirez gets injured.  Even so, I don’t expect him to be a Cub in 2010.

In the end, I’m predicting that the Cubs will sign Hudson to a one or two year contract in the neighborhood of $5 million per year.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs signed Iwamura instead (or arranged for a trade with Tampa Bay before they decline his option), but I expect Hudson to be the Cubs second baseman next year.

The other infield positions will be filled by the current starters; Derrek Lee at first, Ryan Theriot at shortstop, and Aramis Ramirez at third.   Backups will include Jeff Baker, Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and either Mike Fontenot or Andres Blanco.  I expect Koyie Hill to return as the backup catcher.

In the outfield, we already know that Alfonso Soriano and Kosuke Fukudome will take up two of the three positions.  I expect the third outfielder will come to the Cubs as part of a trade for Milton Bradley.  Names like Pat Burrell and Vernon Wells have been thrown around quite a bit.  I don’t think either has a future with the Cubs.  Instead, I expect Milton Bradley to be traded to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand. 

Rowand is signed through 2012 at $12 million per year.  Bradley is signed through 2011 and is owed a total of $21 million.  I expect the Cubs to agree to take on the extra year and $15 million on Rowand’s contract in order to get the Giants to agree to take on Bradley.  Bradley can take over for Randy Winn in right field for San Francisco.  Winn is a free agent at the end of the year and at age 36 next season, is unlikey to re-sign with the Giants.

Rowand, who will be 33 next year, may not be the player he once was, but he still plays a credible center field.  Acquiring him will allow the Cubs to move Fukudome back to right field where he is more comfortable and effective.  Also, Roward is probably not the middle-of-the-order run producing bat that Piniella covets, but he should do a decent job, especially if he can regain some of the pop he had in his bat in previous years.  Don’t get me wrong,  acquiring Aaron Rowand is not the perfect solution for the Cubs.  I just think it is what they are going to do.

Outfield backups will include Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, Sam Fuld, and Jeff Baker.

We already know that, barring a big surprise, Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells will be in the starting rotation.  I expect Tom Gorzelanny to snag the fifth starting spot.  I don’t think the Cubs will make any trades or sign any free agents that will impact the starting five.

In the bullpen, I expect to see Sean Marshall, John Grabow, Justin Berg, Esmailin Caridad, Angel Guzman, and Carlos Marmol.  Unfortunately, other than re-signing John Grabow, I don’t think the Cubs will make any moves to shore up the bullpen.  The reason I say “unfortunately” is because I feel strongly that the Cubs should replace Marmol as the closer.  He’s too undependable and the Cubs need dependabilty in the closer role.

The options to replace Marmol are very limited.  I spelled them out in a previous post.  My favorite option is to sign Ben Sheets to close (assuming Sheets would agree to close).  It would allow Sheets to work fewer innings as he recovers from the elbow surgery that kept him out of action in 2009.  Plus, if everything works out, he’ll be available for the starting rotation in 2011 when the Cubs are likely to lose Ted Lilly.  Of course, while I like the idea, I don’t expect it to happen.

You may have noticed that Jeff Samardjzia is nowhere to be found on the Cubs 2010 pitching staff.  That is because I expect the Cubs to keep him in triple-A all year where he can work on a third pitch.  The Cubs are doing everything they can to make Samardjzia into a starter.  But the truth is, he’s much better suited to be a relief pitcher.  I know neither he nor the Cubs want that, but I’m afraid that’s the case.  Perhaps another year in triple-A will help him become the starter he wants to be, but I expect the Cubs to come to the conclusion in the not too distant future that Samardjzia’s destiny  is in the bullpen. 

So, having said all of this, here is my projected roster for 2010:

Infield
1st — Derrek Lee
2nd — Orlando Hudson
SS — Ryan Theriot
3rd — Aramis Ramirez
C — Geovany Soto

Outfield
LF — Alfonso Soriano
CF — Aaron Rowand
RF — Kosuke Fukudome

Pitchers
SP — Carlos Zambrano
SP — Ted Lilly
SP — Ryan Dempster
SP — Randy Wells
SP — Tom Gorzelanny
RP — Sean Marshall
RP — John Grabow
RP — Angel Guzman
RP — Justin Berg
RP — Esmailin Caridad
CL — Carlos Marmol

Bench
Micah Hoffpauir
Sam Fuld
Jeff Baker
Andres Blanco/Mike Fontenot
Jake Fox
Koyie Hill

The 2010 Cubs, at least on paper, should be slightly better than the 2009 team.  If Ramirez annd Soto can stay healthy, and both Soriano and Soto can hit the way they have done in the past, the offense should be in good shape.  The starting rotation looks to be weaker than they were on opening day 2009 when the rotation included Rich Harden, but if Zambrano and Dempster can both stay healthy and rebound in 2010, the rotation should be just fine.

As I stated, I’m afraid that Carlos Marmol is going to be a weak link for this team.  If somehow Marmol can gain some control over his pitches, it will go a long way to helping the Cubs reach the post-season in 2010.