Backtobanks

Unless things change drastically the Cubs will finish with @ a .500 record. If they get hit by a key injury, they will be way below .500. It doesn't matter where in the division they will be if they don't win the division. They are on their way down and with a bunch of bad contracts to boot. With Soriano, Dempster, ARam, Soto, and Zambrano suffering major injuries and players like Harden and Marmol having bad years, they still ended up 5 games over .500. They certainly aren't the Yankees or Phillies, but they're not a .500 team either.

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support. It may be a really stupid idea with no support, but it looks like the overwhelming majority of GMs and managers must think that Bradley will negatively affect their teams performance. Looking at the rumors, it looks like there might be 3 teams slightly interested at bargain-basement prices for a pretty good player whose only negative is that he's a total jerk who causes problems in the clubhouse. Maybe those GMs and managers know more than the rest of us about how a clubhouse cancer affects team performance.

Bill Madden of the New York Daily News reports the Red Sox are talking to the Marlins about reacquiring shortstop Hanley Ramirez. Hard to believe. Ramirez is locked up through 2014 and recently finished second in the MVP balloting. There's no earthly reason Florida should be interested in moving the 25-year old unless Boston completely unloads their farm system. The Sox will have to look elsewhere for a shortstop upgrade.

I didn't understand it myself, but I saw the quote on 2 sites. I think rotoworld said something along the lines of being able to play LaPorta in the OF against LHP. They also said that they wanted someone cheap because he would be on the bench most of the time.

From MLBTR: GM Mark Shapiro is looking to add a right-handed hitting first baseman. Hoynes wonders if Robb Quinlan (.651 OPS vs. LHP last year) and Kevin Millar (.723 OPS vs. LHP last year) might fit. Either player would presumably be cheap compared to other options on the market. I know the Indians aren't mentioned as one of the teams interested in Bradley and they've been wanting to get rid of Wood's contract, but I wonder if they would go for this kind of deal: Bradley + Fox + Berg/Stevens for Kerry Wood They would get there cheap RH bat to play 1B plus a young starter/reliever in addition to Bradley who could play OF and substitute DH. Wood is totally overpaid at this point, but could serve a role as a set-up man to Marmol. I don't think Wood's option for 2011 kicked in yet (55 games finished in 2009 or 2010), so we might have to toss in some money for Bradley in 2011. Obviously, if Wood is used mostly in set-up, his option wouldn't kick in next year. The added benefit is bringing Wood to the clubhouse and removing Bradley. My preference has always been to acquire someone who can play a role in 2010 rather than dumping Bradley for next-to-nothing or DHs like Burrell or Guillen.

A lot of people seem to assume that hes nothing more than a part time player because he hasnt played a full season as a full timer. With the other options being Luis Castillo, Mike Fontenot, and Aarin Miles, I would love to give him that chance, but unfortunately for Jeff, Luis Castillo seems to be in the cards. Baker's situation reminds me of DeRosa about 4-5 years ago. A versatile player who suddenly was given a chance to start and performed well.

I've posted often about going after Cody Ross for CF. Johnson and Ross would cost quite a bit (in players), but it would fill 2 holes for quite a few years at a reasonable cost in dollars.

I agree with you about Lee, but I don't see how you can call 2008 "the year he was recovering from injury" while leaving in his 2007. I guess I should have posted he has been the epitome of consistency for the last 10 years with the exception of a drop in power numbers from 2006-2008 because of a wrist injury. Now that he's completely healed, his power numbers rebounded.

I wouldn't. Are the Cubs a Curtis Granderson type player away from being a playoff caliber team? I don't think so. In fact, I'm not sure if replacing Bradley with Granderson is an upgrade at all. If he isn't the type of player that can turn this into a playoff team, I'd much rather save the talent and sign Cameron to a 1 year deal and see who is available next year that can improve the team. All the rumors this offseason dictate that this team is handcuffed on payroll, so shedding the farm system of 3 of its better players for a guy who won't impact the won/loss record enough to make a difference just seems like continuing the viscious circle. And as much as someone can assure me that Granderson's 2 year plummet won't continue in 2010, he's not someone I can truly stand behind as the building block of the Cubs future. The Cubs need to spend money more wisely moving forward. Instead of watching guys like Matt Holliday and Jason Bay find teams that aren't the Cubs and signing Jacque Jones and Jeromy Burnitz' instead, this team will continue to have a tough time being better than Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Houston, which is an absolute embarrassment. In my mind, the deal would not be to get THE building block for the future. I mostly want to sell high on Vitters while we can still get some good value on him. EDIT: I think I have changed my mind. I don't really want to trade any prospects right now. I think in 2010 we will be about .500 and 2011 should be pretty rough so I don't think any moves would vault us back into World Series discussions. I would rather build for 2012 or so. I certainly wouldn't run out and bet the house on the Cubs winning the WS in 2010, but I can't see why you would think they will be about .500. Just about everybody was injured for a significant part of the year and certain players (Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Harden, etc.) had disappointing seasons and they still finished 5 games over .500. This was in addition to the Cards playing way over their heads and acquiring Holliday and DeRosa to help out Pujols. I would think the Cubs would go into the season as the favorites (or co-favorites) to win the NL Central. Of course, some of that depends on moves made by teams in the next 3 months. I look forward to a healthy rebound by Soriano and Soto with more solid production from 2B (Baker or Baker/Fontenot). Ok, we may be a couple games over .500, but I cannot just see much improvement. Harden will be gone so we can expect a bounceback from him. Wells will not be nearly so good next year which makes our 4-5 very shaky. If there are any injuries to our top 3, our rotation will suck. I would not count on much of a bounceback from Soriano, that is about who he is going to be. Lee will probably regress back to the mean. Counting on solid production from 2B is not a smart idea; Baker hit into tremendous good luck last year. I don't think our bullpen will be any better; Grabow is one of our primary set-up men. Our bench still blows so injuries will still hurt us a lot. It is just a old average team that got a year older. Soriano played on one leg for a good part of the season, so I expect a rebound season for him. I don't get all of the negative comments people post about DLee. Taking out the season he was injured (2006) and the season he was recovering from the wrist injury (2008) and his OPS for the last 5 seasons was .887, .860, .1080, .913, and .972. He has shown no signs of slowing down, so why the forecast of him digressing. Let's not forget ARam was injured for half the season. As for Baker, his career numbers: .270/.326/.455/.781 with 14 HR and 59 RBI. I'll take that out of a 2B. If Fontenot is still around and takes some AB against RHP, the production ought to be well above average for 2B. We don't know what the bench will look like for next year because players like Fox, Hoffpauir, Fuld, and Fontenot could be traded. As for the #4 & #5 starters being shaky, how many teams have solid #4 and #5 starters. I think Gorz, Wells, Shark, Marshall, Stevens, Caridad, and whoever they pick up or "discover" before the season should be able to cover the last two spots.

Do you think Castros really ready? The last thing we want is to rush the guy. It will be interesting to see if Jaramillo can work miracles with Castro. All of the stories have said that Hendry is kind of prepping Theriot for a move to 2B, but I really think Castro needs a little more time in the minors. It wouldn't surprise me if he's called up part way into the season. You're right about not wanting to rush him. There would be a lot of pressure on a 20 year old playing SS on a contending team.

I wouldn't. Are the Cubs a Curtis Granderson type player away from being a playoff caliber team? I don't think so. In fact, I'm not sure if replacing Bradley with Granderson is an upgrade at all. If he isn't the type of player that can turn this into a playoff team, I'd much rather save the talent and sign Cameron to a 1 year deal and see who is available next year that can improve the team. All the rumors this offseason dictate that this team is handcuffed on payroll, so shedding the farm system of 3 of its better players for a guy who won't impact the won/loss record enough to make a difference just seems like continuing the viscious circle. And as much as someone can assure me that Granderson's 2 year plummet won't continue in 2010, he's not someone I can truly stand behind as the building block of the Cubs future. The Cubs need to spend money more wisely moving forward. Instead of watching guys like Matt Holliday and Jason Bay find teams that aren't the Cubs and signing Jacque Jones and Jeromy Burnitz' instead, this team will continue to have a tough time being better than Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Houston, which is an absolute embarrassment. In my mind, the deal would not be to get THE building block for the future. I mostly want to sell high on Vitters while we can still get some good value on him. EDIT: I think I have changed my mind. I don't really want to trade any prospects right now. I think in 2010 we will be about .500 and 2011 should be pretty rough so I don't think any moves would vault us back into World Series discussions. I would rather build for 2012 or so. I certainly wouldn't run out and bet the house on the Cubs winning the WS in 2010, but I can't see why you would think they will be about .500. Just about everybody was injured for a significant part of the year and certain players (Soto, Fontenot, Marmol, Harden, etc.) had disappointing seasons and they still finished 5 games over .500. This was in addition to the Cards playing way over their heads and acquiring Holliday and DeRosa to help out Pujols. I would think the Cubs would go into the season as the favorites (or co-favorites) to win the NL Central. Of course, some of that depends on moves made by teams in the next 3 months. I look forward to a healthy rebound by Soriano and Soto with more solid production from 2B (Baker or Baker/Fontenot).

Finally some posts admitting Granderson isn't the second coming of Willie Mays. For awhile there I was worried that people were willing to give up Castro, Vitters, Casner, plus Jackson for him. As many have pointed out, he's a nice piece to the puzzle, but his flaws should stop us from offering 3-4 players including some of our top prospects.

It will be interesting to see who blinks first, Detroit or the other team. It's kind of like the arbitration process, one side saying he's a borderline superstar while the other side points out all of his weaknesses. Personally, I would love to get him, but nowhere near what the rumored asking price would be.

If only Bradley was 5 years older.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Cameron get more money and possibly more years than Byrd.

No one is cherry-picking stats. We're simply taking a deeper look than the three-year splits you posted. So trying to qualify your generic three-year splits is cherry-picking? OK. I never said it was the only reason to dismiss him, just that it's a reason for caution, considering where he's been playing half his games the last three seasons. There are certainly other things that raise a red flag, such as a low walk rate, his age, his mediocre-at-best defense. My point is that there's "reason for caution" for each of them. Granderson can't hit LHP and is going to cost us probably 4 good young players. Cameron, because of his reputation, will get more money and years than he's worth. I think Byrd is a pretty good option as a third choice assuming his demands aren't outrageous..

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd. Seems to me that if you want to take issue with Seidman's stance on Byrd, then you have to at least address the home/road split issue. My point is that all 3 players have some negatives and the Cubs have to factor in the cost and the negatives for each to determine the best fit for the team. All things being equal, I think we all agree that we would rank them Granderson, Cameron, and then Byrd, but all things aren't equal. An issue that hasn't really been discussed is that I think there will be a lot more interest in Granderson and Cameron, which will drive up their price. All I'm pointing out is that the slash stats you pointed out above are misleading. Byrd's home park is a hitter's haven, and Granderson's is a hitter's graveyard. Of course the fact that Byrd gets a boost from hitting in Arlington is what formed the basis for Seidman's conclusion. Here is what the two guys have done in road games 2007-2009: Byrd: .281/.328/.414/.742 (684 AB) (Home OPS of .897) Granderson: .289/.361/.535/.896 (912 AB) (Home OPS of .802) Now we can debate whether a .742 OPS is 4th OF caliber or not, but you can't very well argue that Byrd is a reasonable comp for Granderson. No where in this discussion did I say Byrd is a reasonable comp for Granderson. My point is that resulting cost factored in to obtain Granderson and Byrd (or Cameron) might make the decision more equal than the first look. As for debating Byrd's .742 OPS is 4th OF caliber or not, how about debating Granderson's .577 vs. LHP is platoon OF status? Granderson is going to have lots of teams driving the price up. I think Cameron is going to get more money/years because of his reputation. Byrd just might fly (no pun intended)under the radar and end up without the contract he wants. Playing with a contender in Wrigley Field and reuniting with Jaramillo might be deciding factors.

No one is cherry-picking stats. We're simply taking a deeper look than the three-year splits you posted. The discussion has evolved. No one is looking at this as an "either Granderson or Byrd" option. As you said, Cameron has been discussed, as well. I'm sure there are other options to consider. Personally, if Byrd was willing to take a one-year deal for $5 million or less, I wouldn't be against it. However, he's going to get more years and more money than that. As for Cameron, even if age does catch up to him offensively, he's still a much better option defensively than Byrd. How is it not "cherry-picking stats" if you're talking about his numbers only on the road? Let's not forget there are a few "hitter's parks" on the road in the NL. Personally, if Granderson wasn't going to cost us 4 top young players, I wouldn't be against it either.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd. Seems to me that if you want to take issue with Seidman's stance on Byrd, then you have to at least address the home/road split issue. My point is that all 3 players have some negatives and the Cubs have to factor in the cost and the negatives for each to determine the best fit for the team. All things being equal, I think we all agree that we would rank them Granderson, Cameron, and then Byrd, but all things aren't equal. An issue that hasn't really been discussed is that I think there will be a lot more interest in Granderson and Cameron, which will drive up their price.

While I agree that would be good to get from CF, that's the HIGH end of what to expect from Byrd. More than likely, you'd probably get an OPS in the .770-.790 range. The one good thing I can say about him is that he hits lefties and righties pretty much equally over the course of his career. To me, he's just not the bat the Cubs need, especially for the money and contract length he wants. I agree, I would rather we sign Cameron. Offensive production would be similar, Byrd would probably hit for a higher average, while Cameron draws more BB. OPS wise they come in about the same give or take .010 points. Cameron is going to play superior defense and is apparently a great clubhouse guy. IDK what kind of guy Byrd is, I would assume with the Bradley fiasco "character" and "team chemistry" is going to play a factor in who we bring in this offseason. I would rather have Cameron for 1-2 years for $4-6 per. Than Byrd for a 2-4 year deal for around $8-10 per. I never said Byrd was my first choice for CF, but his 3-year numbers away from Arlington are .281/.328/.414/.742 (which aren't too terrible for a CF). Of course, everybody's cherry-picking stats to make their point, but let's not forget Granderson against LHP. The original discussion centered on trading blue chip prospects for Granderson or a short term deal for Byrd and my point is that depending on the costs (players, money, and years) involved, the choice might not be as obvious as expected. The same is true for Cameron. Is Cameron going to settle for as little as 1 year/$4 million? There's no way Byrd is going to get 4 years @ $10 million per.

How about expanding the Bradley-to-the-Mets deal: Mets get: Bradley, Fontenot, Berg/Stevens, Fuld Cuts get: Pagan, Castillo, Maine Cubs use Pagan as 4th OF, Castillo platoons with Baker, Maine vies for 5th starter. Mets get starting OF, use Fontenot as 2B (or platoon), Fuld becomes 4th OF, Berg/Stevens are young, cheap options to start or relieve.

I think Seidman is crazy to call Byrd a 4th OF. While we would all love to see Granderson on the Cubs, I don't think Byrd is a bad option. Of course, you would have to factor in the cost (in prospects) of getting Granderson with the cost (in dollars and years) to get Byrd. 2007-2009: Byrd - .295/.352/.468/.820 Granderson - .277/.350/.499/.849 Looking at those numbers, there aren't many teams that wouldn't love to have Byrd's numbers for their CF. I think it's a tough decision if you're talking 3-4 players from Marmol, Vitters, Castro, Casner, Jackson, etc. for Granderson as opposed to $16 - $18 million over 2 years for Byrd.

If we could convince anyone that Bradley would be "happy/motivated" for any reason, GMs would be knocking on Hendry's door in droves.

I suggested this awhile ago when the rumors started about Jenks possibly being DFAed. The WS could certainly use an OF/DH with Dye and Posednick leaving and Quentin as a question mark. The discussion did bring up the Ozzie/Bradley circus, but maybe Ozzie might be the kind of manager that Bradley needs (if such a manager does exist). Would the WS go for Bradley + Berg/Stevens + $6 million for Jenks? If the WS want Fox, we can add Fox and cut the money to $4 million. I dont know if they would go for Bradley, but if Fox isnt enough, maybe they would go for Fox+Fuld, whose a younger Podsednik+one of Berg/Stevens. Maybe even Fontenot instead of Fuld. I don't necessarily want Jenks. The point of my proposal was to dump Bradley and get something of more value than Guillen, Burrell, etc. At least Jenks would have a role on the 2010 Cubs (unlike Guillen and Burrell who are DHs).

I suggested this awhile ago when the rumors started about Jenks possibly being DFAed. The WS could certainly use an OF/DH with Dye and Posednick leaving and Quentin as a question mark. The discussion did bring up the Ozzie/Bradley circus, but maybe Ozzie might be the kind of manager that Bradley needs (if such a manager does exist). Would the WS go for Bradley + Berg/Stevens + $6 million for Jenks? If the WS want Fox, we can add Fox and cut the money to $4 million.