So now that we’re beginning our descent of Off Season Mountain, what can we expect from the Cubs in the weeks ahead?

The Cubs are in a tough position.  They presumably have very little money to spend, but they still have at least three holes to fill.  Some would say the Cubs have “needs” rather than “holes.”  I’m not sure which is technically correct.  The point is that the Cubs have viable options in-house to address their needs, but they would be better off looking elsewhere for help.

One such position is second base.  In-house, the Cubs have Mike Fontenot and Jeff Baker, neither of whom should be a starting second baseman on a legitimately contending team.  The Cubs have the fourth highest payroll in MLB (based on 2009 figures), but have one of the weakest second basemen in all of baseball.  That’s just not right.

Another option at second for the Cubs is Ryan Theriot.  If he moves to second, the Cubs will need to find a stand-in  for a year at SS until prospect Starlin Castro is ready (the Cubs wouldn’t bring Castro up at the beginning of 2010, would they?)  One in-house option at SS is Andres Blanco.  He’s a slick fielding SS, but a weak hitter.  The up-the-middle defense would be good, but the offense would be even weaker than it was last year when Fontenot was starting at second.

If there’s any money available, the Cubs could improve the team by signing Orlando Hudson to a one-year deal.  Of course, I’m sure that Hudson would like a multi-year deal for $4-$5 million per year (he made $3.38 million plus bonuses last year), but considering the current state of the free agent market, that’s unlikely.

Another guy to consider is the guy that sent Hudson to the bench last year in Los Angeles: Ronnie Belliard.  He’s another guy who is seemingly being shunned in free agency.  He made $1.9 million last year and probably won’t command much, if any, more this year.

The idea is to find a second baseman who can be had on a cheap ($1-$3 million) one-year deal, but who will also make the team better.  Either Hudson or Belliard are better options than what the Cubs currently have in-house.

If the Cubs decide to look to the free agent market for a SS, there are only two guys they should consider, but the odds are that neither one will meet the criteria of being cheap and willing to take a one year deal.  The two shortstops, Orlando Cabrera and Miguel Tejada, would both be upgrades, but likely out of the Cubs league.

Another position that needs attention is starting pitching.  The Cubs enter the season with Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells as the only pitchers certain to be in the starting rotation.  Ted Lilly will start the year on the DL, so Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Marshall, and Jeff Samardjzia will battle it out for the other two spots in the starting rotation.  No matter who emerges from that group, it doesn’t make the starting rotation very strong.

Rumors have been circulating that the Cubs are interested in adding Ben Sheets.  I’m all for signing Sheets, but I heard initially that he was seeking a contract for $12 million/year.  More recently, I’ve read that his demand is more in the $7-$9 million range.

I like Ben Sheets and when he is healthy, he’s one of the best pitchers in baseball.  However, he’s coming off of elbow surgery that kept him out of baseball for the entire 2009 season.  That’s not the kind of guy you want to spend a lot of money on or who you want to give a multi-year contract.

If Sheets’ price comes down to $3-$4 million for one year, I can see the Cubs getting involved (along with a host of other teams).  But at his current asking price, he’s not only out of the Cubs range, but also a bad risk.

Finally, the Cubs could use another bullpen arm.  In my opinion, this is the one need that the Cubs could probably fill in-house.  They have a depth of decent bullpen arms.  Even so, this appears to be the position where Jim Hendry is focusing his efforts.  Rumor has it that he is targeting the Blue Jays Jason Frasor.  I don’t know what the Cubs would have to give up to get Frasor, but I really have to question the wisdom of adding an arbitration-eligible bullpen pitcher who made $1.45 million last year when the team has other needs.

Honestly, I don’t expect any big moves out of the Cubs the remainder of the off season.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs went into Spring Training without making any moves.  I hope that doesn’t happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

**********

Are the Cubs moving their Spring Training home to Florida?  I still think it’s a long-shot, but the Naples effort got a boost recently when the Collier County Hotel and Lodging Association voted unanimously to approve use of the County’s tourist tax to build a new stadium for the Cubs.

The move was important not only because it cleared the way to use proceeds from the tourist tax to help fund building the Cubs a new training complex, but also because it showed the Cubs that the hoteliers are completely on board with the proposal to bring the Cubs to Naples.  Cubs President Crane Kenney made it clear that the Cubs only want to go where they are wanted.  So the unanimous vote to use proceeds from the tourist tax was an important step forward for the Naples effort.

A few weeks ago, the Cubs announced that they had eliminated a proposed Spring Training site on the Gila River Indian Community in  Arizona.  That leaves Mesa, AZ and Naples as the only two remaining possibilities.

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.

I went overboard yesterday in my criticism of a blog post written by Carrie Muskat of MLB.com.  Her opinion was that the Cubs can not afford to add Halladay’s $15.75 million salary to their payroll, the Cubs will not be willing to trade top prospect Starlin Castro for Halladay, and Toronto’s asking price will be too high for just one year of Halladay.  In my rebuttal, I made it clear that I thought Muskat’s logic was weak and misguided.

My argument concerning Muskat’s comment about there only being one year left on Halladay’s contract was to say that any team willing to pay the price necessary to trade for Halladay would also likely want to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay before finalizing a trade.  Now Anthopulous has apparently let it be known that he would allow other teams a window to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.

In a blog post by Jordan Bastian of MLB.com, he says:

“Considering Halladay is only under contract through 2010, one way for the Jays to potentially get more in a trade would be to give another team a window in which to discuss a contract extension with the pitcher. Anthopoulos declined comment on such a scenario, but MLB.com has learned that the Jays will consider granting such a window in trade talks if it means the return is significantly greater.”

Exactly.  Former Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi totally mishandled the team’s attempts to trade Halladay last year.  Not only was he asking for way too much, but he also would not allow other teams to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay.  Considering the asking price and terms, very few teams were interested and a trade was unltimately never made.

I look at the possibility of adding Roy Halladay to the Cubs from two perspectives.  First, can the Cubs afford his contract.  While it is true that Halladay’s contract would not fit within the team’s current budget, budgets can change.  If you have to go over budget for a player like Roy Halladay, you do it.  He’s a true staff ace, something the Cubs are missing.  I know it’s easy for me to say this since it’s not my money being spent, but I still think it is the right thing to do.

Of course, adding to the budget may not even be necessary.  That’s where my second perspective comes in.  Toronto isn’t just going to give Halladay to the Cubs.  So what will it cost the Cubs to get him?

My guess is that the Blue Jays will want one MLB-ready pitcher, one or two top prospects, and maybe another body or two.  So, who fits the bill?

As far as MLB-ready pirchers go, the Cubs have Ryan Dempster (a Canadian) they could trade if the Blue Jays are looking for a proven arm.  Of course, he’s more expensive than guys like Sean Marshall and Tom Gorzelanny, who have had some success at the MLB level and are less expensive.  Carlos Zambrano is another guy I would be willing to trade for Halladay, but I doubt if Toronto is interested in taking on his contract.

What about prospects?  Starlin Castro is currently the Cubs top prospect according to Baseball America.  I know the Cubs don’t want to move him, but for a player like Roy Halladay, I think you have to be willing to do things you’d rather not do.  But to be honest, I’m not sure it would be necessary to move Castro.  Two names that come to mind as far as prospects go are Josh Vitters and Darwin Barney. 

Until recently, Vitters was the Cubs top prospect.  It’s not so much that his stock has fallen (although it has a bit), but that Castro’s has risen.  Vitters plays third base, but is much more of an offensive player.  That might interest Toronto. 

Shortstop Darwin Barney is behind Castro on the prospect depth chart, but he’s ahead of Castro as far as being ready to play in the major leagues.  Since Toronto is likely to lose their shortstop, Marco Scuturo, to free agency this off season, they need an MLB-ready shortstop.  Barney might fit the bill.

Barney is a polished player.  He played at Oregon State during their College World Series championship years and has done well at every stop during his minor league career.  He split 2009 betwen Double-A and Triple-A, and could be ready for the next level. 

If they want a shortstop that is also one of the Cubs top 10 prospects, Toronto might consider Hak-Ju Lee.  He’s still young (19-years old), but has shown a great deal of potential so far in his short career.  He’s among the Cubs top 10 prospects according to Baseball America and he is probably just a year or two away from being ready for the big leagues.

If you move away from shortstop, the Cubs have a few other prospects that might interest Toronto.  Some names to consider are Tyler Colvin, Andrew Cashner, and Logan Watkins.

As for “warm bodies” the Cubs could throw in to sweeten the deal, look no further than Jake Fox and Micah Hoffpauir.  Fox in particular would be attractive for the Cubs because he is out of minor league options.  Both players have power, both can play more than one position, and neither one has much of a future with the Cubs.

I’m not suggesting that trading for Halladay would be easy or that a deal is imminent.  All I’m saying is that it is way too easy to dismiss the possibility of the Cubs trading for Halladay.  Do I think a trade is going to happen?  No, I don’t.  But I’m not willing to dismiss such a trade out of hand.

One final rant: The Cubs have done a good job of changing the team’s culture from lovable loser to playoff contender.  That’s good and it was a necessary step for the Cubs to take if they ever hoped to win a World Series.  But it is now time to take the next step.  The Cubs need to set their sights on the World Series.  With new owners and a down economy that allows the Cubs to flex their financial muscles, now is the perfect time for the team to focus on getting the players they need and to win a World Series.

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…

A Look At The Offseason (Part 1 – Infield)

Today, I want to turn my attention to the outfield.  The general concensus has been that Milton Bradley will be traded in the offseason, so the Cubs will either need to replace him in right field or they”ll instead move Kosuke Fukudome back to right and then go shopping for a center fielder.  We’ll look at both possibilities.  But first, let’s take a look at the potential market for Bradley to get a feel for what a trade may bring in return.

In a previous post, I stated that the only way the Cubs are realistically going to be able to trade Bradley is to take back another teams’ bad contract or package Bradley with some other valuable players.  I’ve also thrown out some possible trade scenarios.  Let’s run them down in no particular order here:

Milton Bradley to San Francisco for Aaron Rowand — Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two seasons and Rowand is owed $36 million over the next three years.  San Francisco would like to jettison some payroll in order to make some moves, but at the moment they are hamstrung.  By taking on Bradley, the Giants could reduce payroll a bit and could add a typically high-OBP bat to their lineup.  From the Cubs perspective, Rowand will be 32 years old during the 2010 season.  He is coming off one of the worst seasons in his career, having hit .261/.319/.419 with 15 homeruns and 64 RBI.  Rowand could fill the potential void left in center field, but his defense has taken a hit over the years and the Cubs would be commiting to having him on the team for three years.  Not a perfect trade for the Cubs, but what is?

Milton Bradley to Texas Rangers for Michael Young — In a nutshell, the Texas Rangers are in bad financial trouble.  The team is for sale, but the process is moving slowly.  If owner Tom Hicks can’t unload the team soon, he instead is going to have to unload some payroll just to keep the team afloat.  The Rangers’ highest paid player is Michael Young.  He is owed $64 million over the next four years.  Trading Young for Bradley may not make baseball sense for the Rangers, but it would make financial sense.  From the Cubs perspective, they could take advantage of Texas’ financial woes by unloading Bradley and bringing in the middle-of-the-order run producer they covet.  In 2009, after spending some time on the DL, Young hit .322/.374/.518 with 22 homeruns and 68 RBI.  He currently plays third base, but the Cubs would have to move back to shortstop, which is his preferred position.  This would also force Theriot to second.  The move would also reunite Young with hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo to whom he gives much credit for his hitting ability.

Milton Bradley to Los Angeles Angels for Gary Matthews, Jr. — At one time not too long ago, Gary Matthews, Jr. was considered a hot commodity.  In 2007 he was signed by the Angels to a 5 year, $50 million contract.  But just one year later, the Angels signed Torii Hunter to play center field and Matthews became the highest paid 4th outfielder in baseball.  At the moment, Matthews is still owed $23 million over the next two years.  In limited action in 2009, Matthews hit .250/.336/.361 with four homeruns and 50 RBI.  My guess is that the Cubs would jump at this trade.  The contracts are basically a wash and Matthews could fill a need in center field.  He may not be the power threat that Michael Young is, but I think it is fair to say that his power numbers will increase if he is getting regular playing time, which could make him the middle-of-the-0rder run producer the Cubs are looking for.  Plus, he’d be reunited with Rudy Jaramillo who was his hitting coach in 2006 when he had the best offensive year of his career.  The real question is, would the Angels take on Bradley?  The Angels and Mike Scioscia  have a history of not putting up with player misbehavior.  But they are under some pressure to trade Matthews, both because he has asked for a trade and because they pay him a lot of money to be a 4th outfielder.  There’s a chance Vlad Guerrero could be leaving the Angels, so Bradley could step in as a DH.  If I had to guess, I would guess that the Angels would not go for this trade.

Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay Rays forPat Burrell — According to Bruce Levine with ESPN Chicago, the Cubs are still talking to Tampa about a Bradley for Burrell trade.  Just typing that makes my head hurt.  Burrell is a DH.  Don’t the Cubs realize that there is no DH in the NL?  When he does play in the field, he plays left field.  We have one of those already.  This trade make no sense to me, but it looks like it’s a possibility.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Toronto Blue Jays for Vernon Wells and Roy Halladay — Toronto is in a world of hurt.  They need to rebuild their team in order to compete in the AL East, but they are saddled with such big contracts that they can’t make any moves.  Vernon Wells is owed $98.5 million over the next five years, plus another $8.5 million in 2010 that is the third installment of his signing bonus.  Halladay is owed $15.75 million in 2010 and then he becomes a free agent.  Together, that’s a ton of money.  Is there any scenario where this would make sense for the Cubs?  Maybe.  The only way I see it working out is if the Cubs are given the opportunity to work out an extension with Halladay before the deal is made.  Even if this happened, it still might not be enough for the trade make sense for the Cubs.  Vernon Wells contract is just too crazy.

Milton Bradley to Detroit Tigers for Curtis Granderson or Magglio Ordonez — I have to admit, I don’t completely understand this rumor.  I don’t see why Detroit would trade either Granderson or Ordonez for Bradley.  Even so, the rumors have been persistent.  Granderson is signed through 2012 and is owed a total of $14.75 million.  Considering his production, he has a rather reasonable contract.  He also has a club option for 2013 for $13 million and a $2 million buyout.  In 2009, Granderson hit .249/.327/.453 with 30 homeruns and 70 RBI.  He also stole 20 bases on a team that generally does not steal many bases.  Ordonez is owed $18 million for 2010.  There is also a vesting option for 2011 for $15 million.  Ordonez struggled at the plate for a good part of 2009, and still managed to put up a hitting line of .310/.376/.428 with 9 homeruns and 50 RBI.  Granderson will be  29 years old in 2010 and Ordonez will be 36.  Honestly, I don’t know why the Tigers would trade either guy for Bradley, but if they’ll do it, the Cubs should jump at the chance.

Milton Bradley (and others) to Baltimore Orioles for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott — If Baltimore would go for this trade, it could fill the Cubs two biggest offseason needs all at once.  Roberts would be the lead-off man they have lacked for years and Scott is the middle-of-the-order run producer they are looking for.  But would Baltimore really go for it?  My opinion is that they should.  Let’s face it, the Orioles are not in a position to compete in the AL East.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only way the Orioles win the East is if they decide to rank the teams alphabetically next year.  Since that’s the case, why would the Orioles hang on to two guys that are a) expensive, and b) not going to be around in a few years when the Orioles will be in a better position to compete.  Roberts is owed $40 million over the next four years and Scott’s 2010 salary will be set via arbitration, but it’s safe to say that he’ll be getting a raise from the $2.4 million he made in 2009.  If I was in Baltimore’s shoes, I would look to jettison payroll now and bring in young players who they can put around Matt Weiters and can help them compete in a few years.  Of course, Andy MacPhail hasn’t asked for my advice.

**********

We can be sure that Alfonso Soriano will be in left next year for the Cubs and Kosuke Fukudome will either be in center or right.  That leaves one starting position and two back up positions open in the outfield.  I’ve layed out the possible players the Cubs can acquire through a trade of Milton Bradley.  Let’s look at possible free agent targets.

The three most intriguing free agent center fielders to me are Marlon Byrd, Mike Cameron, and Rick Ankiel.  Byrd is expected to sign a two or three year deal for $5+ million.  There’s also been quite a bit of speculation that the Rangers would like to resign him.  Byrd hit .283/.329/.479 with 20 homeruns and 80 RBI.  He’ll turn 33 during the 2010 season.

Mike Cameron will be 37 in 2010, but he has been very steady throughout his career.  In 2009 he hit .250/.342/.452, which is remarkably close to his career averages.  He made $10 million in 2009, but is probably looking at signing a one-year contract for less money.

Rick Ankiel should be a low cost, high upside player.  However, his agent is Scott Boras, so who knows what kind of money he might be looking for.  He hit .231/.285/.387 with 11 homeruns and 38 RBI in 2009 in limited action.  He’d be a risk, but at the right price, could be a good investment.  The problem is, I don’t think his price is going to be right.

Right fielder free agent targets include Bobby Abreu and Jermaine Dye.  I’m fairly certain that Abreau is going to be looking for a multi-year contract (two or three years) for somewhere around $10 million per year.  He’s already turned down a two-year, $16 million contract extension from the Angels.  I like Abreu, but I’m afraid he has priced himself out of the Cubs’ budget.

Jermaine Dye made $11.5 million in 2009 and hit .250/340/.453 with 27 homeruns and 81 RBI.  Even so, Dye may end up walking the same road that Abreau walked last offseason.  I can foresee Dye signing a one year deal for $4 million – $6 million.  Dye has always performed and has not really gotten the credit he deserves.  Signing Dye for one year at $5 million could be a good investment for the Cubs.

The 4th and 5th outfielders are probably with the club already.  They will come from a list of Micah Hoffpauir, Jake Fox, and Sam Fuld.  There’s also the possibility that the Cubs will re-sign Reed Johnson, although my personal opinion is that Johnson would cost too much.  I don’t foresee the Cubs going after a free agent to fill one of the reserve outfielder positions.

**********

Next up is a look at the Cubs pitching staff for 2010.  Are they set or will they go shopping for pitching this offseason.  Stay tuned…

Bruce Miles of the Daily Herald says that Jim Hendry is focused on hiring Jaramillo, who is technically under contract until the end of October.  In fact, Miles opines that Hendry will go after Jaramillo with “laser beam-like” focus.  Carrie Muskat of MLB.com says on her blog that the Cubs have already contacted the Ranger to request perrmission to talk to Jaramillo.

I had no idea that hitting coaches get paid so much, but Jaramillo was earning $600,000 a year with the Rangers, according to Jon Heyman at Sports Illustrated.com.  Heyman goes on to say that the Cubs may increase his annual pay to $750,000/year.

Considering their poor offensive showing in 2009 (with the exception of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez), the Cubs can only go up in 2010.  Whoever ends up being the hitting coach will probably look pretty good if the Cubs hitters just get back to their career average levels.

**********

There has been a lot of speculation in the press about where Milton Bradley may end up.  In one sense, I’m surprised more isn’t going on with Bradley.  My guess is that a lot is happening behind the scenes, but not being reported because of MLB’s “ban” on any news that distracts from the playoffs.  I suspect that something concerning Bradley’s future will be announced shortly after the World Series.

Up until now, the speculation has been that Bradley will be traded to San Francisco in exchange for Aaron Rowand or to Tampa Bay for Pat Burrell.  If these are the only two options, I say go for Rowand.  He can fill the spot in center field and will allow Kosuke Fukudome to move back to right.  Even so, I think there are better options.

I think my favorite “proposal” is to trade a package of players (including Bradley) to Baltimore for Brian Roberts and Luke Scott.  Another possibility is to trade Bradley to Texas for Michael Young.  Admittedly, it’s not a good deal for Texas, but they desperately need some payroll relief because of owner Tom Hicks’ financial problems.  Young is the highest paid player on the Rangers, so the move could make financial sense even if it doesn’t make baseball sense.   

I’m less crazy about trading a package of players (including Bradley) to Toronto for Roy Halladay and Vernon Wells.  Having Halladay would be great, but taking on Wells contract could turn into a huge mistake.  From a baseball standpoint, I think you can justfy this trade.  But from a financial standpoint, it could be a disaster.

What other potential trades for Bradley are lurking out there?  It should be an interesting few weeks.

**********

Does anyone own more ugly suits than Craig Sager of TBS?  There should be a law…