OMGranderson AND Obsessive Bradley Trade Watch: Resolution at the Winter Meetings?

The Chicago Cubs want to trade Milton Bradley. The Chicago Cubs want Curtis Granderson. The Detroit Tigers are shopping Curtis Granderson. These are the things that we know, and most other bets are off. But we might know more very soon.

The Tigers continue to have trade talks involving Edwin Jackson and Granderson, with both situations likely to come to a conclusion at the winter meetings in Indianapolis. The Cubs are serious about Granderson but have made it known they won’t give up Carlos Marmol or Starlin Castro. The Tigers instead could ask for right-hander Andrew Cashner and third baseman Josh Vitters. chicagotribune.com.

The news about Marmol/Castro being off limits is not new, nor is the possible inclusion of other top prospects like Vitters or Cashner.

But the suggestion that the Tigers want to have all things Granderson wrapped up by the Winter Meetings - that’s next week, beginning Monday, December 7 - has a great deal of meaning for the Chicago Cubs.

First, and most plainly, it would mean that the Cubs must make a seriously play for Granderson in the next week and a half. They must decide how much they are willing to give up to get the center fielder.

But secondly, and underlying the Cubs’ Granderson decision, is the decision about Milton Bradley. If the Cubs do not have Milton Bradley moved before the Tigers are ready to move Curtis Granderson, it could cause serious problems for the Cubs. If Bradley is still a Cub when the Tigers come a-calling, saying that they’ve got an offer from X team that they’re ready to accept unless the Cubs beat it, what are the Cubs to do?

If they beat the offer, and move on Granderson, they risk being stuck with both Granderson and Bradley - something that we’ve been told is financially impossible. Further, trying to trade Bradley after acquiring Granderson would be a nightmare: can you imaging the feet-to-fire-holding when other teams know the Cubs have four expensive outfielders, and desperately want to move one of them?

If they pass at that time, because they need to first move Bradley, the Tigers could say forget you, and accept the other offer.

Either way, if Milton Bradley is still a Chicago Cub by the time the Winter Meetings are winding down, it could mean bad things when it comes to acquiring Curtis Granderson. Well, that is if the above-suggestion from Phil Rogers at the Tribune on the timing of a Granderson trade is correct.

And as much as we want resolution, maybe we should hope that it’s not.

Share

Cubs Looking at Another Expensive Reliever, Because, You Know, That Makes Sense

As if signing reliever John Grabow to a two year $7 million contract was not enough indignity for a team approaching its budget limitations and with needs in the infield, the outfield, and at the back-end of the rotation, the Chicago Cubs are now interested in signing another big money reliever.

Un-freaking-believable:

According to Sponichi, Takashi Saito has eight teams interested, including the White Sox, Cubs, Braves and Mets. The Braves had some interest in Saito way back in 2002 but he wound up remaining with Yokohama. NPB Tracker .

Saito has been very good in four big-league seasons, but will be 40 years old next year, and will command between $1.5 and $6 million this year - I know, that’s a huge range, but I’m sacrificing a narrow guess for accuracy: that range comes from the $1.5 million he made in 2009 (he’ll get more) and the $6 million option the Red Sox held on him and declined (he’ll get less).

For a team whose bullpen currently stands at about 20, and whose pen was NOT the problem last year, Saito seems like an elderly luxury. Sure, most of those 20 options are youngsters, but that’s where successful teams find their middle relievers.

Even hinting at signing Saito for some $3 or 4 million, signing Grabow to the same, and then in the same breath saying that there isn’t enough money to offer Rich Harden - the number 4 starter on a team without a clear 4 or 5 starter to start the season - arbitration insults our intelligence and our fandom.

Share

Tuesday is the Arbitration Deadline - Cubs Plan No Offers

Tuesday is the deadline for Major League teams to offer arbitration to their free agents. If the player accepts, he will get a one-year contract at a rate determined by an arbitrator (if necessary), and that rate almost always represents a raise over the prior year’s salary. If the player declines and then signs elsewhere, the player’s original team will get draft pick compensation if the player was one of the top players in the league at his position. “Top players,” is of course subject to some debate, but a formula at the Elias Sports Bureau makes the evaluation - you can question the utility of a formula and procedure that designates Matt Holiday and Kevin Gregg as equivalent free agents, but whatever.

On to the news:

The Cubs were not expected to offer arbitration to Kevin Gregg, Rich Harden, Reed Johnson and Chad Fox by Tuesday’s deadline. Muskat Ramblings.

With respect to Gregg, Johnson, and Fox, this is no surprise. Rich Harden is also not a surprise, but a mind-bogglingly frustrating non-surprise.

Harden, a Type B free agent (signing team would not have to give up a pick in order to sign Harden, but the Cubs would get a sandwich pick between the first and second round of the draft), made $7 million in 2009, and would thus likely receive around $8 or 9 million in 2010 through arbitration. Still, the Cubs are apparently unwilling to take the chance that he accepts such a one-year deal - you know, when there are plenty of teams likely willing to offer him a multi-year deal.

That said, not offering Harden arbitration, alone, is not an indictable offense. He’s got a rickety shoulder, and does not manage to go deep into games. Arbitration would be, at least, a small risk.

But if the Chicago Cubs knew they were not going to re-sign Rich Harden when the season ended (and they did), and if they knew they were not going to offer him arbitration (they should have known), then why in the WORLD did they not trade him at the trade deadline or the non-waiver trade deadline this year for whatever they could get? Harden was claimed on waivers by the Minnesota Twins, and they wanted him as late as the non-waiver trade deadline at the end of August - when everyone could see that the Cubs were out of the race. And even if the Cubs believed they weren’t, Harden made just three more starts for the Cubs after that date.

As I see it, there are only two remote, but reasonable explanations - which must be offered simultaneously for me to accept them - for not trading Harden AND not offering him arbitration:

1.) Jim Hendry believed Rich Harden was healthy, and would dominate in September, leading the Cubs back into the race; thus, he refused to trade him; AND

2.) Between August 31 and today, something critical has changed: either Rich Harden’s shoulder profoundly deteriorated or was discovered deteriorated (which would mean the Cubs repeatedly lied as the season wound down), or the Cubs’ finances changed so dramatically that the risk of Harden accepting arbitration would crush the team’s plans.

Together, it all seems like a stretch. What is more likely is a mealy-mouthed, half-assed combination of the explanations - gee willackers, well I thought the Cubs might come back in September, and the offer for Harden wasn’t very good, and gee willackers, I didn’t really think ahead about the likelihood of re-signing Harden versus offering him arbitration, and what the market for a pitcher like him would be like this off-season.

Gee willackers, indeed.

Share

Obsessive Bradley Trade Watch: Yup, It All Depends on Milton

In case there was ever any doubt, the Chicago Cubs’ offseason is being held hostage by Milton Bradley. Until the Cubs figure out what to do with him, they can’t move forward with other plans. This is, of course, because the 2010 payroll is only going to edge up ever so slightly from 2009; so until and unless the Cubs can move Bradley, and save a little coin in the move, they can’t pursue other options.

Particularly in the outfield - after all, money issues or no money issues, if Bradley isn’t moved, there’s no spot in the outfield anyway. And boy howdy - after Curtis Granderson, the options are so very enticing (lame rolly-eyed face).

The Cubs’ offseason truly will kick off only after they trade outfielder Milton Bradley. Only then can they begin, in earnest, their pursuit of a center fielder.

A left-handed hitter would fit best, which is why a trade for the Tigers’ Curtis Granderson, a native of Chicago, at least will be explored. Among the free agents, Scott Podsednik and Rick Ankiel bat left-handed, while Coco Crisp is a switch-hitter.

From the right side, the free agents include Marlon Byrd — who played for new Cubs hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo with the Rangers — and Mike Cameron.

One agent who has spoken with the Cubs says the left-right issue is not as big a concern for the team as it was last offseason, when GM Jim Hendry was fixated on balancing his lineup with a left-handed or switch-hitter.

No, the issue now is how quickly the Cubs can purge the player who was supposed to solve that problem — Bradley — and how much financial flexibility they will gain through such a move.

Those factors, as much as anything, might determine the type of player they pursue. FOX Sports on MSN.

Mike Cameron, ironically, may be the most attractive of the options. Though he’s getting on in age, he is consistently good (if not great), and is very good defensively. Ankiel is also good defensively, but without his magic muscle juice, he can’t hit worth squat. Marlon Byrd is a disaster waiting to happen after hitting well in Arlington and nowhere else. Podsednik is a nonstarter (both in terms of discussion, and in terms of, well, being a starter). And Coco Crisp brings the great name and nothing else - folks keep talking about him as a “leadoff hitter,” despite not having exceeded a .345 OBP ever in his career, and hasn’t had an OPS+ over 93 (remember, 100 is average) in over four years.

And folks wonder why campaign so hard for Curtis Granderson?

Share

Breaking: Bud Selig’s Reign of Meh to End in 2012

Per ESPN’s bottom line, Major League Baseball Commissioner/noted curmudgeon Bud Selid will finally give up his post after the 2012 season.

Perhaps then MLB can finally stop losing ground to the NFL and the NBA - sports with more progressive administrations.

Share

Andre Dawson Should Make the Hall of Fame This Time Around

Andre Dawson holds a special place in the hearts and minds of Cubs fans, even though he spent just six of his 21 seasons in Chicago. His 1987 season was inspiring and nearly historic - he took home the MVP despite playing for the last-place Cubs, hitting 49 homers and driving in 137 runs. Of course, if you go by modern statistics, his 1988 season was actually better - a season in which he hit just 24 homers, and drove in but 79.

And such is the dichotomy of Andre Dawson. In his time, he was best at things that were considered the most “valuable” at the time. But spurning the reflective lenses of history, and looking at the cold, hard statistics, it is harder to say that he was one of the truly elite.

Dawson is on the HOF ballot for the ninth time this year, and we should hope that the voters can break out those historical glasses just one more time.

“Now there’s no one for me to hurdle,” Dawson said in an MLB Network interview in September. “Everyone’s behind me. I think (2010) poses the biggest window for me. I kind of, for a change, look forward to it. I can’t say that’s always been the case in the past, because the writers make sure they don’t put in more than one or two in a particular year.”

Dawson received 361 votes, or 67 percent, last year in the balloting. Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were the only players elected for induction in Cooperstown, receiving 511 votes, or 94.8 percent, and 412 votes, or 76.4 percent, respectively.

A candidate must get 75 percent of the vote to gain election, with Dawson (67 percent), former Twins ace Bert Blyleven (62.7 percent), and closer Lee Smith (44.5 percent) standing as the top three returning vote-getters. They’re joined on the ballot this year by a group of newcomers that includes All-Star second baseman Roberto Alomar, Reds superstar shortstop Barry Larkin and Mariners designated hitter Edgar Martinez.

Results of the election will be announced on Wednesday, Jan. 6. cubs.com.

Dawson has a great shot at enshrinement this year, as he should, based solely on the class.

By almost all accounts, Dawson’s HOF ballot failures thus far prove that he was a victim of the time in which he played. When Andre was in his prime, crankin’ homers and driving in runs, nobody was talking about on-base percentage. And that worked for the Hawk, because he never met a pitch he didn’t like. That’s not to say Dawson struck out very much - he didn’t - he simply didn’t take many walks. His career high in walks? A scant, almost humorous, 44 in 1980.

Dawson performed as he was expected to: he hit the ball, hard, and he produced runs. He played top-of-the-line defense, for many years in a place (Olympic Stadium) where it was neither fun nor easy to do so.

But now that it comes time to decide if he is one of baseball’s immortals, is it fair to hold him to a standard that nobody preached when Dawson played? So his OBP sucks (career: .323). Does that mean he wasn’t one of the very best in the game when he played? Does it mean that he isn’t one of only six players in history to have 300 homers and 300 stolen bases? Does it mean that he doesn’t have more extra base hits than anyone in baseball history who isn’t in the HOF? Does it take away his eight All Star appearances or his eight Gold Gloves?

Andre Dawson was a Hall of Famer when he played. How could he not be a Hall of Famer now?

Share

Chicago Cubs Are Over the Freaking Moon with Starlin Castro

It’s no secret that the Chicago Cubs love Starlin Castro, a 19 year old shortstop who was signed outside the draft a few years ago. But they apparently think they’ve got an Alex Rodriguez/Hanley Ramirez type on their hands, because they are seriously considering making room for him on the big team this year.

Castro isn’t on the 40-man roster, but he will get a spring training invite and an opportunity to break camp with the Cubs if he has an exceptional spring.

It’s a long shot, considering Castro began the season in Class A last April and doesn’t turn 20 until March 24. But the Cubs are so sold on his future that they already have told incumbent shortstop Ryan Theriot he might move to second base in the not-so-distant future.

How will the Cubs weigh the decision on whether Castro is ready?

By asking their newly designated “hitting guru.”

“Rudy has a great track record with hitters, and you have a young man here who has had only six to eight weeks in Double A,” general manager Jim Hendry said. “So you want to make sure everybody feels he has enough experience to make the jump.

“And once he gets here, you want to let him go. You don’t want to put expectations on him, that he has to be here by a certain day, that it has to be Opening Day or by the All-Star break. You let him dictate when he’s ready by the way he plays, the way he carries himself and how he adjusts. No one in house is worried about it because Theriot is a real good player and we’re certainly prepared to play without Castro, with Ryan coming back after a couple of successful years.” chicagotribune.com.

I hate to parse those statements to death, but when the GM is saying things like “we’re prepared to play without Castro,” the negative implication is that the team is expecting to play with him. Despite that expectation, it’s good to hear that the team will either go with him on Opening Day, or not at all, and then re-evaluate at the All-Star break. The greatest criticism lobbed at the Cubs when it comes to developing prospects is the constant yo-yo-ing - in and out of the lineup, up and down from AAA.

Most folks believe Ryan Theriot’s minus defensive ability could become a plus at second base, where his limited range and weak arm could be hidden a bit more. So if Castro establishes himself at shortstop, everyone will be pleased.

And fortunately, reports indicate that the Tigers are looking for cheap, ML-ready players in exchange for Curtis Granderson. And despite the immediately above paragraphs, Castro probably doesn’t qualify, strictly speaking, as “ML-ready.”

Share

OMGranderson: Starlin Castro is Absolutely Untouchable

The good news is the Chicago Cubs are finally taking the development of positional prospects very seriously.

The bad news is it could prevent the Cubs from getting a player of need.

Even though you’ve read suggestions that the Cubs should trade shortstop prospect Starling Castro to the Tigers for outfielder Curtis Granderson, it simply is not going to happen. The Cubs appear to have a bona fide blue-chip prospect at a position other than pitcher, and they are not trading him for Granderson or anybody else. DailyHerald.com Blogs.

Now, I would not go so far as to say that we’ve suggested the Cubs trade Starlin Castro for Curtis Granderson.

HOWEVA, the idea that the Cubs should unequivocally not consider such a trade is simply crazy to me. Castro is a great prospect - but he’s 19, he’s only had moderately high level (AA) success for part of one season, and even then, it wasn’t like he was tearing the cover off the ball. He had a .743 OPS last year at AA Tennessee, and a .731 OPS at High A Daytona.

I get a lot of crap for being what people perceive as “anti-Castro.” But that simply isn’t the case. Despite those not so great OPS numbers, I recognize that the numbers are downright spectacular given Castro’s age, position, and the level of competition. I’m just tired of riding the wave of the next great prospect that never was.

This iteration of the Chicago Cubs has a particularly strong two-year window for winning it all. After that, yes, they could have restocked and the window could be extended (perhaps indefinitely, given the payroll). But if Jim Hendry successfully unloads Milton Bradley, and a gaping hole opens up in center field, I dare anyone to name a better option for the Cubs than Curtis Granderson that has been realistically mentioned.

That’s worth considering - Castro or no Castro.

(And Happy Thanksgiving, you turkeys. See what I do for you? Providing up to the moment Chicago Cubs news, rumors, and anlaysis, even on Thanksgiving.)

Share

Next Page »