Despite the lack of playoff wins during his tenure with the Cubs, Piniella has done a good job in Chicago.  He led the team to back-to-back division championships for the first time since 1907-08, and the Cubs had three winning seasons in a row under him (2007-2009).  Depending on how the 2010 season ends, he could end up with four winning seasons in a row (although I would not bet on it).

Of course, the speculation on who the Cubs manager will be starting in 2011 started even before Piniella officially announced his retirement.  Ryne Sandberg seems to be the fans choice.  Sandberg is probably my favorite Cubs player of all time (I celebrate Ryne Sandberg day every June 23), but there’s a big part of me that hopes he isn’t the next manager.  Sure, I have some concerns about Sandberg’s ability to lead a big league club.  But more than that, I don’t want to see him fail.  Ryno has a spectacular reputation among Cubs fans and I would hate to see that tarnished in any way.

Another potential managerial hire is Joe Girardi.  I have a lot of respect for Girardi.  I also have the tangential connection to him through my in-laws (I’ve explained this before, but my wife grew up with Joe and their families were friends for years, although not so much now).  I think he would do as good of a job with the Cubs as anyone, but I seriously doubt he’ll leave the Yankees.  Maybe his connection to the Cubs is stronger than I think it is, but I just don’t see him giving up the managerial job with a perennial winner to take the same job with a perennial loser.

Cubs announcer Bob Brenly is also in the discussion.  I appreciate the fact that he has spoken his mind concerning the Cubs poor play this year, but I wonder if that might not hurt him.  Even if it doesn’t hurt him with the front office, it just might hurt him with the players.

Alan Trammel’s name has also been thrown into the mix.  The Cubs bench coach is certainly familar with the ball club, but I wonder if his association with Piniella might not hurt him.  With Piniella leaving, I would think the club would want to make a clean break from the past.  Keeping Trammel around sort of just continues the coaching philosophy of the past three plus years.  Plus, for what it’s worth, Trammel does not have a particularly inspiring track record as a manager.

Paul Sullivan also mentions Joe Torre as a possible replacement for Piniella.  Torre’s contract with the Dodgers is up at the end of this year and he has mentioned his desire to manage the Cubs in the past.  Personally, I don’t see it.  I’m not sure that it is a good fit and I wonder how much the 70-year old Torre still has in the tank.  Of course, it’s hard to argue with the success Torre had in New York and to a lesser extent in Los Angeles.  Even so, if I was a betting man, I’d bet against a Torre era with the Cubs.

Finally, a dark horse candidate might be Pat Listach.  He a former Cubs minor league coach and the current third-base coach for the Nationals.  He was well-liked while he was in the Cubs’ organization and he’s well-respected throughout baseball.  Even so, I don’t think he has the big name brand equity the Cubs will likely be looking for.

So who will the next manager be?  Perhaps a better question is, who will be hiring the next manager.  Jim Hendry is on the hot seat and he very well may not be back next year.  Will Hendry do the hiring?  Will a new GM do the hiring?  Will Tom Ricketts make the decision on the next Cubs manager regardless of who is sitting in the GM’s chair?  It should be interesting.

UPDATE:  Paul Sullivan at Chicago Breaking Sports has an update on the Lou Piniella press conference.  In addition to confirming that Piniella will retire at the end of the season, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts said that he plans on retaining Jim Hendry and that Hendry will be making the decision on a new manager.  To me, that’s a little surprising, but it is probably a good idea to get it out of the way now rather than fueling speculation for the rest of the year and going into the off-season.

There’s no doubt that Hendry has his detractors and some of what they say when they complain about him is true.  Hendry has made his mistakes.  But who among MLB GM’s has not made similar mistakes.  Theo Epstein in Boston is often held up as the perfect GM, especially by the Sabermetric crowd.  But Epstein has made his share of mistakes.  Under his direction, Boston has released players who were still owed big money (i.e. Julio Lugo) and are in a position right now where they want to pay someone to take Mike Lowell off their hands.  Brian Cashman and Billy Beane are two other GM’s who are often lauded, but who also have a mixed record.

In order to be a successful GM, you have to take some risks.  And when you take risks, sometimes you lose.  It’s the nature of the game.  If you look objectively at Hendry’s record (something that is hard for Cubs fans to do, including me), you find that at the very least, he has done a respectable job.  I can’t say I’m thrilled that Hendry will be leading the Cubs into 2011 and perhaps beyond, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either.

With Hendry coming back, I think the odds of Sandberg being the next manager just increased a bit.  Sandberg has done everything Hendry has asked of him, and he has done it well and with success.  He’s climbed the coaching ladder within the Cubs organization and I think it will be tough for Hendry not to choose him as the Cubs next manager. 

In fact, let me make a prediction.  In the near future, I predict that Sandberg will by moved up onto Piniella’s coaching staff to get a little big league coaching experience before taking over the team next year.  It’s just a guess on my part, but remember, you heard it here first.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

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

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

********** 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A report from SpringTrainingOnline.com indicates that the Cubs have rejected plans to renovate HoHoKam Park in favor of building a completely new Spring Training facility.  The Cubs would prefer a campus-like setting where the training fields and Spring Training ballpark are all together.  Currently, the training facilities at Fitch Park and the Spring Training stadium at HoHoKam Park are separated.

If the Cubs remain in Mesa, the most likely area for a new Spring Training facility is on the west side of town near the airport and I-10.  But remaining in Mesa is anything but a sure bet. 

There has also been talk about a possible move to the Gila River Indian Reservation.  According to a spokesman for the tribe, the talks have only been preliminary and no plans have come before the tribal council.  But the point is that the Cubs have options, even if they choose to stay in Arizona.

But will they stay in Arizona?  Not if the City of Naples, Florida has anything to say about it.  A group in Naples that includes the Collier County Economic Development Council, the Naples City Council, Fifth Avenue Advisors (a diversified financial services firm), Esmark (a company involved in steel production, healthcare, oil, aviation, sports management, etc.),  have met with Cubs brass about a possible 120 acres development that the group says will provide the Cubs with a state-of-the-art Spring Training facility and will enhance the development plan of Collier County.

The Naples group has deep pockets, as well as a commitment from the State of Florida for $7 million to attract or keep a team in the Sunshine State for Spring Training.  They’ve vowed not to use any local taxes for the project.

David Moulton of the Naples Daily News believes that Naples has a real shot at landing the Cubs.  He points out that even after the folks in Arizona had made their pitch, the Cubs still made arrangements to visit Naples.  Also, Moulton is encouraged by the fact that one of the first things Tom Ricketts did as new owner of the Cubs was to fly to Naples to look at land for a Spring Training facility.  Moulton thinks that the Cubs prefer Naples.  He also thinks it helps that 15 of the last 18 (soon to be 16 of the last 19) World Series champions have their Spring Training homes in Florida.

Arizona Phil, contributing writing over at The Cub Reporter, thinks that the Cubs are using Naples as leverage to get what they want in Arizona.  Phil is an astute observer of the Cubs, particularly their operations in Arizona, and his belief is that the Cubs will stay in Arizona, but move to the Gila River Indian Reservation.  His reasoning is sound. 

“The movement of MLB clubs has been strictly Florida to Arizona for the past 15 years, and with all 15 MLB Arizona teams soon to be located in the Phoenix metro area (when the D’backs and Rockies move from Tucson to their new combined facility on the Salt River-Pima Reservation in 2011), I can’t see any club going from Arizona to Florida. If anything, I would say at least one more team (probably the Houston Astros) will move from Florida to Arizona in the near-future. Florida just cannot compete with the shorter travel distances between Arizona’s ST sites/Minor League complexes and Arizona’s more-predictable weather.”

As I’ve stated previously, I’d prefer that the Cubs move to Florida.  My reasons are selfish (it’s better for me), but I do think that the package in Naples is extensive.  I also think a move to Florida gives the Cubs an opportunity to change the way they do things.  Tom Rickett’s can start with a clean slate and a move to Florida could be a catalyst for a cultural shift within the organization.

Whatever the Cubs decide, it appears certain that in a few years they will have a new Spring Training home.  Whether that new home is in Mesa, on the Gila River Indian Reservation, in Naples, or somewhere else is yet to be determined.

Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.com wrote an article back in August giving Ricketts a list of things not to do with the Cubs.  It’s an old article, but still has some good thoughts.  Before providing the list, Wojo said:

“This isn’t just any team you’re purchasing. This is the Cubs, a franchise with enough heartbreak and history that it needs its own traveling psychotherapist. What it doesn’t need is an owner who thinks of the Cubs as simply an investment, another expensive car to park in the portfolio garage. It needs someone who has business and baseball sense. (Jerry Reinsdorf isn’t a bad ownership template.) It needs someone who cares if the W flag flies — and not just because it might mean a full house the next day.”

The list Wojchiechowski put together includes:

• Don’t fire Jim Hendry
• Don’t let Crane Kenney be Crane Kenney
• Don’t sit in the front row seats next to the dugout
• Don’t touch the big three (red Wrigley Field marquee sign, center field scoreboard, ivy)
• Don’t continue the faux-tradition of inviting guests to sing the seventh inning stretch
• Don’t forget Greg Maddux
• Don’t wait on Piniella to decide  if he is coming back next year (Done)
• Don’t ditch the Triangle Building
• Don’t retire Sammy Sosa’s number
• Don’t be afraid to eat some salary
• Don’t be afraid to trade Carlos Zambrano
• Don’t be an imitator (of the Boston Red Sox Fenway Rehab)

There are three things on Wojo’s list of 14 “Don’ts” that pertain to Wrigley Field or the area surrounding Wrigley.  That’s interesting.  What other team (other than the Red Sox) would have as much concern about the stadium where the team plays it’s games.  The Texas Rangers are on the market now.  Do you think anyone is concerned about what is going to happen to Arlington Stadium (okay, technically Rangers Ballpark at Arlington) when the new owners take over the team?  Of course not.  But Wrigley Field is special and people treat it like Stonehenge or the Acropolis.

Wrigley Field is special.  It’s a beautiful ballpark.  It’s also a terrible place to go watch a baseball game.  If you’ve ever driving to the ballpark you know what I mean when I say it is nearly impossible to find a place to park that isn’t several blocks/miles away.  And I don’t know anyone who thinks that the urinal troughs in the mens room are a nostalgic reminder of a better time.  They’re disgusting.

I have to admit, I enjoyed going to Wrigley as a young man.  It was fun; an adventure.  When I was old enough to drink, the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley was like heaven.  There’s a bar on every corner and a few in between. 

But as an adult with a family, Wrigley Field is not a pleasant place to go.  It is hard to get to, it’s dirty, outdated, and it takes forever to leave (i.e. not close to the highway).  We’ve been to other stadiums that are easy to get to/easy to leave, have plenty of parking, are cleaner and more modern, and where the seats are more comfortable.  After being at these other stadiums, its hard to go back to Wrigley and enjoy the experience.

Of course, it’s true that the things I’m complaining about haven’t kept the fans away.  The Cubs are among the leaders in attendance among MLB teams every year.  But from a business perspective, that doesn’t mean that Wrigley Field is generating the profits it could.  For instance, there are not enough luxury boxes.  Corporations are big time clients for all baseball teams and the Cubs are unable to accomodate the demand for luxury suites.

Also, like a stately old home, Wrigley Field is a money pit.  Upkeep is expensive and the needed remodeling threatens to break the bank.

Finally, there’s no room to expand.  The Cubs desperately need bigger locker rooms and office space, but they are confined in a well established neighborhood.  The Cubs have proposed building the Triangle Building next to Wrigley Field, but neighbors are protesting because of the height of the building.  In fact, the neighbors complain about everything the team wants to do.  Whenever the Cubs want to make a change, they have to enter into negotiations with the city and their neighbors in Wrigleyville.  It’s a pain.

In many ways, I love Wrigley Field.  It’s a landmark, a baseball museum.  Unfortunately, it is no longer a great place to play MLB games.  Off the top of my head, I don’t know what the best alternative is, but I don’t think that Tom Ricketts should be so consumed with saving Wrigley at all costs that he refuses to consider other options.

**********

What do you think of a Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells trade?  Not much?  Me either, but Joel Koch at BleacherReport.com thinks it’s the Cubs best option.

The entire trade, as proposed by Koch, would send Bradley and Mike Fontenot to Toronto for Wells, RHP Jeremy Accardo, and OF Jose Bautista.  I talked about a potential trade scenario with Toronto previously, but I had Roy Halladay coming to the Cubs in order to make up for the huge and unexplainable contract of Vernon Wells.

It’s my opinion, Toronto would jump at the trade proposal that Joel Koch has layed out.  They’d be nuts not to.  But the Cubs would be nuts to seriously consider it.  Taking on Wells massive contract without getting something valuable to make up for it (no offense to Accardo and Bautista) doesn’t make any sense for the Cubs.  They may need to eat some of Bradley’s contract to move him, but trading a bad contract for potentially the worst contract in baseball history isn’t a good idea.

“Here’s the deal. Cubs GM Jim Hendry has been working the phones, and was doing so today, trying to move Bradley. Cubs people tell me Jim has been talking with several teams, so there appears to be no shortage of interest, something also reported by national baseball writer Ken Rosenthal, who cites baseball people as saying there is widespread interest in Bradley.

“Bradley can’t come back to the Cubs for several reasons:

–How does he walk into the clubhouse and face teammates who lined up last month in St. Louis to tell the writers they were glad Bradley had been suspended and that he ought to look in the mirror?

–What happens when Bradley says something provocative to the media in spring training? The Cubs do not want any more “Here we go again” moments.

–What would happen if Bradley goes 0–for-5 with 3 strikeouts in the home opener at Wrigley and the fans start booing again? Heck, what happens the first time he heads out to right field, the scene of all that “hatred and adversity,” to use Bradley’s term?

–The Cubs will have new owners any day now, and you have to believe the Ricketts family wants no potential public-relations disasters on its hands, courtesy of Milton Bradley.

“As I’ve written, if Hendry can create a market or even the perception of a market for Bradley, he might be able to get decent return and not have to eat all of the $21 million coming to Bradley over the next two years. Of course, Hendry is responsible for giving Bradley the three-year, $30 million contract in the first place.”

As usual, Mr. Miles is spot on.  Bringing Milton Bradey back in 2010 would be a bad idea on so many levels that it is hard to believe that anybody in the Cubs organization is seriously considering it.  My guess is that they’re not.

**********

Now that the Cubs have hired Rudy Jaramillo to be their hitting coach, Mark Potash of the Sun-Times thinks they should turn their attention to hiring Dave Duncan as their pitching coach.  Duncan is currently with the Cardinals (in case you didn’t know) and his contract ends at the end of this season.

According to Potash, Jaramillo may be the best hitting coach in the game today, but Duncan is the best pitching coach in baseball history.  High praise indeed.  But he doesn’t stop there:

“With all due respect to Rudy Jarmillo, Dave Duncan is the best pitching coach in baseball history. He should be the first pitching coach in the Hall of Fame. He has a record of developing young pitchers, resurrecting old pitchers, squeezing one golden season out of the most mediocre of arms and turning your trash into his treasure that is unmatched anywhere in baseball. Nobody’s even close.”

But here’s the rub: Duncan usually goes where Tony LaRussa goes.  LaRussa’s contract is up at the end of this season as well.  The Cardinals want him back and he has indicated that he is not interested in managing anywhere else.  Of course, there have been persistent rumors that he doesn’t want to manage in St. Louis next year either.  One rumor has the St. Louis skipper sitting out 2010 in anticipation of several potential managerial openings in 2011.  If he does sit out in 2010, Duncan will be on his own.

There’s also the possibility that Duncan will be on his own even if LaRussa re-ups in St. Louis.  Duncan is very upset with the Cardinals front office for the way they handled the trade of his son, Chris Duncan, in a deal that sent Julio Lugo from Boston to St. Louis.  It has been speculated that Duncan will not consider a return to the Cardinals even if LaRussa returns as the manager.

I’m all for hiring Dave Duncan.  If he can have the same type of success with the Cubs that he has had everywhere else he has been, then by all means, sign him up.  Give current Cubs pitching coach Larry Rothschild his parting gifts and thank him for playing.  But at this point, I think this idea needs to be filed under “Long Shot.”

**********

I haven’t really thought this through, but should the Cubs stand pat with Carlos Marmol as their closer?  Next week I plan on writing a series on what the Cubs should do this off season and I’ll have to address this issue then, but for now, Carrie Muskat of MLB.com throws out a couple of interesting stats about the Cubs closer.

• Marmol was third in the league for hit batters with 12.  However, among relievers he was clearly first.
• Marmol had the worst walk numbers  in the National League among closers.  He walked 65 in just 74.0 innings.  The next highest total was 38.0 by the Mets Francisco Rodriguez and the Nationals Mike MacDougal.  Rodriguez pitched a total of 68 innings (while compiling 35 saves) and MacDougal pitched a total of 50.0 innings.  For those of you who are mathematically challenged (including me), that’s 7.90  BB/9 for Marmol, 5.02 BB/9 for Rodriguez, and 6.84 BB/9 for MacDougal.

So what’s my point?  I don’t have one yet.  I was just thinking out loud.  Next week I’ll revisit these numbers and come up with a verdict on whether the Cubs should keep Marmol in the closers role or look elsewhere for 9th inning relief.

As best I can tell, there are two reasons for this rumor.  The first is obvious: Milton Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years and few teams are interested in trading for him.  Worse yet, of those teams that are interested in trading for him, none are interested in picking up Bradley’s entire contract.  Can you blame the Cubs (and new owner Tom Ricketts) for thinking that keeping Bradley may be a good idea?

The second thing fueling the “Bradley is going to stay” rumor is the Cubs interest in hitting coach Rudy Jamarillo.  Bradley thrived under Jamarillo’s tutelage in Texas in 2008, so there could be a connection.  Also, the Cubs are reportedly offering Jaramillo $750,000 – $800,000 per year to be their hitting coach.  It would make Jaramillo the highest paid coach in MLB.  It’s a lot of money, but it’s a lot cheaper than eating a substantial portion of Bradley contract.

If I could, I would simply pick up the phone and ask Jim Hendry what he is thinking.  Of course, I can’t because we haven’t spoken ever since “Big Jim” stiffed me on a bet we made last year.  It still upsets me and I’d rather not talk about it.  Please stop asking.

Anyway, the next best thing is to ask one of the reporters that covers the team.  If I had my choice, that reporter would be Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Bruce Miles is the best thing going when it comes to reporters covering the Cubs.  Miles sat down recently for an interview with Dylan at AnotherCubsBlog.net.  Although they didn’t specifically cover the possibility of Bradley staying with the Cubs, Miles did say:

“All I’ve heard is that Hendry is talking with two or three teams, and I’m sure he’d like to create the perception of a market for Bradley so maybe he can get something decent in return or not have to eat all of the money. Some team is likely to take a chance on Bradley.”

That leads me to believe that Miles is either not hearing the rumors about Bradley staying with the Cubs or he doesn’t take them seriously.  If there was talk on the organizational level about Bradley remaining a Cub, Miles certainly would have mentioned it.

Depending on how you look at Milton Bradley, you either see a guy with a tremendous upside (based on his 2008 performance in Texas) or you see a guy who is a headcase and a clubhouse cancer.  Either way, the truth is that one can’t be separated from the other.  In 2009 the Cubs found out the negative impact one player can have in their clubhouse.  Do they really want to try it again in 2010?

I have no doubt that Tom Ricketts doesn’t want to start his reign as Cubs owner by paying $10 or $12 million (or whatever the final price might be) to make Milton go away.  I can understand.  But I hope he listens to his baseball people who tell him that paying Milty to go away is addition by subtraction.  I hope Ricketts understands that 2010 is going to be the fans first impression of the new Cubs owner.  First impressions are hard to overcome.  If the fans’ first impression of Ricketts is of a guy who gave Cubs fans a repeat of the 2009 experience in 2010 because he couldn’t bare the thought of paying someone else to take Bradley, then I’m afraid he’s in for a difficult tenure as head of the Cubs.