My only comment concerning Howry is, why?  Granted, the Cubs need another arm for the bullpen.  The only criteria Howry fills though is that he is right handed.  Other than that, he has been a mess this season.  He has always been prone to the long ball, but this year he has given up six dingers in just 14 innings.  It seems to me that the Cubs are throwing gasoline on their bullpen fire.

Given the chance, I have to believe that one or more of the Cubs young arms could step in to shore up the bullpen.  Guys like Justin Berg, James Russell, Esmailan Caridad come to mind, but there are also Triple-A starters like Jay Jackson and Andrew Cashner who are available and throwing great this year.  Why would the Cubs elect to go with an apparent reclamation project instead of giving one of their up-and-comers a chance?

I hope Howry joins the Cubs and is lights out, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.  He has struggled all year and a simple uniform change probably won’t make much of a difference.  Of course, stranger things have happened.  Take Carlos Silva for instance…

Blanco was on the bubble heading into Spring Training.  It was unclear if he would make the major league roster, and he was also out of minor league options.  When the Cubs decided to give Mike Fontenot a chance to prove himself as the backup shortstop, it was an indication that Blanco was in trouble.  Despite hitting .667 in Spring Training (in just seven games), Blanco ended up being the odd man out.

The move allows the Cubs to improve the hitting of their bench, although it does hurt the backup middle infield depth from a defensive standpoint.  Does this mean that Kevin Millar will now take a seat on the Cubs bench?

Click here to see a great defensive play by Blanco while in a Cubs uniform.

Of course, now I’m old and smart, and I know that “hope springs eternal” are the first three words in Alexander Pope’s poem, An Essay on Man.  The poem was written in 1733, before baseball was even invented.  Although to hear some Cubs fans, you’d think that was the same year the Cubs started training in Mesa.  But I digress.

Despite the fact that I now know the origin of the phrase, I can’t help but associate it with Spring Training.  After all, at the beginning of Spring Training, all team’s are tied for first and fans from each team have reason to hope that this is the year their boys of summer will bring home the prize.  Well, at least that’s how it’s supposed to be.

The truth is that fans for several teams know that their teams don’t stand a chance of making the post-season, let alone win a World Series championship.    That’s not how it’s supposed to be in professional sports.  The rules of the sport are supposed to make the playing field even — or as even as possible — for all teams.  In this respect, baseball fails miserably.

Once again in 2010, the team with the highest payroll (Yankees) will outspend the team with the lowest payroll (Pirates) by more that five times.  Not only does that not create an even playing field, but it creates a situation where the lowest payroll team has absolutely no chance of competing.  Under baseball’s current rules, the Pirates are simply fodder used to fill out the schedule.

And the Pirates are not alone.  They are joined at the bottom of the payroll ladder by the Nationals, Rangers, Athletics, Marlins, and Padres.  All teams that have very little chance of posting a winning record and virtually no chance of making the post-season.

I can hear the naysayers now saying that the Rangers were competitive in the weak AL West just last year.  That’s true, but the AL West is better this year and the Rangers will likely not be as good. 

The naysayers also point to the Marlins who, despite league leading low payrolls have won two World Series titles since 1997.  Again, true, but the Marlins are the exception.  If it takes a miracle for a team to rise to the top, then the playing field probably isn’t very level.

Many fans point to the Yankees for outspending every other team.  I am not a Yankee basher, at least not in this context.  Baseball is flush with money.  At a time when other sports are seeing their revenues decrease (some substantially), baseball actually saw an increase in revenue in 2009.  Attendance was down, but revenue was up.  In fact, according to Maury Brown at The Biz of Baseball,  MLB’s revenues hit a record $6.6 billion in 2009.

That means that teams have more revenue sharing money coming in for the 2010 season.  Even so, teams at the bottom of the payroll ladder continue to spend less on payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

At one time, I was in favor of a salary cap for MLB that included a minimum amount team’s had to spend on payroll.  I was never completely comfortable with the idea of a salary cap, but I couldn’t think of any other way to even the playing field.

Then last November, I ran across a column by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com in which he did a fantastic job of explaining the problem and offering a solution.  In his article, Stark pointed out that as many as 10 teams (one-third of all MLB teams) receive more in revenue sharing and TV/radio rights (local and national) than they spend on payroll.  (That figure is up to 13 of the 30 teams based on 2010 projected payroll figures)

In my original post on this subject, I explained Stark’s solution to the problem like this:

Stark then offers a solution than I like much better than my original salary cap solution.  Stark suggests that MLB continue to tax the highest spending teams just as they do now, but also start taxing the lowest spending teams.  Set payroll parameters that discourage the wealthiest teams from spending their competitors into oblivion, but which also encourage the “poorest” teams to spend the money they receive from the central fund, revenue sharing, and local TV rights to improve their teams and to compete on the field.

As Stark points out, this proposal will not cure all of MLB’s ills, but it will improve competitive balance and the play on the field.  And once competitive balance is established, many of MLB’s problems will seem much less important.

For years, the NFL has bragged about the parity they have been able to achieve.  On any given Sunday, any one team can beat any other team in the NFL.  Not so in MLB.  Every year, there are teams that don’t stand a chance of being competitive, let alone have hopes for the post-season.  Instead of creating parity, MLB has created a parody of what a competitive, well-run league should look like. 

For fans of two-thirds of the teams in MLB, hope springs eternal again this year.  Some teams may be long shots, but at least they stand a chance.  Not so for the other one-third of teams.  Before the season even gets started, they are out of the running.  For fans of those teams, “hope springs eternal” doesn’t hold any special meaning.  It’s simply a line from a poem.

Marlon Jerrard Byrd is 32-years old (DOB: 8/30/77).  He was born in Boynton Beach, FL, but he was raised primarily in Marietta, GA.  He attended Georgia Tech in Atlanta where he played baseball.  While at Georgia Tech, Byrd injured his right leg causing muscle damage and resulting nerve damage.  He had to undergo three operations to his leg before the damage was corrected. 

Because of the injury and surgeries, Byrd missed a lot of class time at Georgia Tech and ended up leaving school.  Once he was healed, he enrolled at Georgia Perimeter Junior College (now called simply Georgia Perimeter College) and focused his efforts on building a career in baseball.

In 1999, Byrd was the 10th round pick of the Philadelphia Phillies.  Byrd did well in the minors, moving quickly through the Phillies minor league system.  The highlights of his minor league career include a tremendous year in 2001 in the Double-A Eastern League where he was named Rookie of the Year, the League’s Player of the Year, and he was a post-season All-Star while playing for the Reading Phillies.  In 2002, Byrd was named a post-season All-Star for the Triple-A Scranton Phillies of the International League. 

Byrd was considered a top prospect in the Phillies organization (getting as high as third in the organization) and he made his big league debut at the end of the 2002 season.  He only played in 10 games that year, getting 25 ABs and compiling a slash line of .229/.250/.371 with a homerun and an RBI.

In 2003 he became a starter for the Phillies and had a very good year.  In 135 games (495 ABs), Byrd put together a .303/.364/.418 hitting line with 7 homeruns and 45 RBI.  He came in 4th in Rookie of the Year voting (Dontrelle Willis of the Marlins won the ROY award).

The Phillies had big plans for Byrd after his rookie campaign, but like so many players, he suffered through a sophomore slump.  In 2004, he hit just .228/.287/.321 with five homeruns and 33 RBI in 346 ABs.  After playing just five games with Philadelphia in 2005, he was traded to the Washington Nationals for Endy Chavez.  The change of scenery didn’t help Byrd much.  He ended the year hitting a combined .266/.323/..376 with two homeruns and 26 RBI in 229 ABs.

Byrd’s career continued to slide downhill in 2006 with Washington.  He began the year in the majors, but by July 15 of that year, the Nationals had seen enough and they sent him back to Triple-A.  While with the Nationals in 2006, Byrd hit just .223/.317/.350 with five homeruns and 18 RBI in 197 ABs.

In 2007, the Texas Rangers took a shot on the struggling Byrd and signed him to a minor league contract.  He started the year in class-AAA, but was called up to the Rangers in May after both Brad Winkerson and Jerry Hairston, Jr. went down with injuries.  Byrd played well, getting 414 ABs and hitting .307/.355/.459 with 10 homeruns and 70 RBI.  In fact, the Rangers were so pleased with Byrd’s play that they traded starting CF Kenny Lofton to Cleveland and replaced him in the line-up with Byrd.

Byrd’s work with Rangers’ (now Cubs’) hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo continued to pay off in 2008.  Byrd hit .298/.380/.462 with 10 homeruns and 53 RBI in 122 ABs.  Through much of the season, Byrd suffered with a bad knee, forcing him to spend a little over a month on the DL.  He had off season microfracture surgery in October which included repair of a torn meniscus.

In many ways, 2009 was Byrd’s career year, although some will argue that he actually had a better year in 2008.  Regardless, 2009 was a very productive year for Byrd.  He hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 89 RBI (both career highs) in 547 ABs (also a career high).  Following the season, the Rangers offered Byrd salary arbitration, but he declined, preferring instead to test out the free agent market and seek a multi-year deal.

Byrd’s center field defense has always been considered good, but his UZR/150 rating indicates that he is the epitome of average in CF, scoring a 0.0 career rating.  He actually has above-average ratings in both right and left field.

Byrd isn’t much of a stolen base threat.  His career high is just 11, which he achieved in 2003 with the Phillies.  During his three years with the Rangers, Byrd stole a total of 20 bases.

From a money standpoint, I was surprised to learn that Byrd actually took a pay cut to play for the Cubs in 2010.  He earned $3.06 million in 2009 with the Rangers (plus $87,500 in bonuses for hitting AB targets) and would have almost certainly received a raise had he accepted arbitration.  He agreed to play for $3 million for the Cubs in 2010, but of course he’ll receive raises in both 2011 and 2012.     

On a more personal note, Byrd is married and has two children.  In high school, he was a two sport star (baseball and football) and he enjoys golf, tennis and weightlifting away from the ball park.

I think it’s fair to say that Byrd is not the player the Cubs coveted.  They started the off season looking for a run producing middle-of-the-order bat and/or a speedy lead-off hitter with a good OBP.  Byrd is neither of those guys, although he’s closer to the former than the latter at this stage of his career.  Even so, the pickings were pretty slim and the club signed Byrd to a reasonable contract, so all is not lost. 

Bill James has projected that Byrd will hit .279/.340/.438 with 14 homeruns and 64 RBI in 480 ABs in 2010.  I’m not sure how James does his projections, but I would think they would change with Byrd moving from Texas to the Cubs.  His projection must be impacted by who he plays with, who he hits behind and in front of, and where in the lineup he hits.  My guess is that Byrd will hit 5th or 6th in the lineup for the Cubs.  If he can just repeat the success he had in Texas, I think we’ll all be happy.

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.

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.