Backtobanks

I agree with you on the Bradley thing, but that's simply not going to happen. I think when talking about this winter we need to just assume he's gone. Whether or not that's the right move is a completely different debate. As far as Byrd goes, I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. Defensively, he has a good reputation, and according to UZR he's almost exactly average, with a -6 last year, +5.9 in 08, and a +.3 in 2007At worst he's probably a little above average, which considering he would allow us to move Fukudome to RF he would still give us a pretty good net gain in the outfield defensively. And he's a type B FA, so there is no cost in players for him. As for Home/Road splits, I think those might be a minor issue, but nothing huge. First off, there's generally a gap in guys with regards to home/road splits. For instance, in 2009 the average MLB player hit .267/.340/.429 at home and .258/.326/.406 away. Also, Wrigley Field is a pretty damn good hitters park too, so there shouldn't be much of a dropoff going from Texas to Wrigley. I mean he's not a guy to go "Oh my God it's Marlon Byrd!" But he's a pretty good player that can probably be gotten relatively inexpensively. When a guy plays in Texas and has huge splits, it's an issue. If we got Byrd I think we could expect like a .750 OPS. Arlington kind of has Coors syndrome, where home/road splits are more pronounced because the other parks in the division heavily favor pitchers. that's a good point. ok .780 .780 plus we get to keep Castro, Vitters, etc. ain't bad.

I don't have a problem with Harden being here all year. I'm sure we can find 22-27 starts for Harden when Lilly is starting the season injured, Zambrano always manages to miss a few starts, and wondering if Wells can duplicate what he did last year.

Excellent question. Lets go over a short list of teams that could go after Granderson, a very solid center fielder who will be up for a contract soon: Red Sox: They have a solid center fielder in Ellsbury, but could Granderson be a cheaper option for them than Bay or Holliday? Mets: They're looking for another bat. Again, would be cheaper than Bay or Holliday. Braves: They have stated that they want another outfield bat, but they want a righty. Cardinals: Do they have the trade chips left after last season? and of course.... The Yankees: If they choose to let Matsui and Damon go, and not shell out for Bay or Holliday, he could be an option for them. With all the money on their books, they might prefer a trade over another massive contract. The Cubs are right up there. we definitely have the need for a center fielder. Granderson would fit our bill. Hes owed 5.5 mil in 2010, and then goes up to 8.25 in '11 and 10 mil in '12 and then a 13 mil option for '13. I say we go for it. Maybe start with a package like Fontenot, Marshall, Colvin, and a prospect or 2, and see where it goes from there. I don't have a problem with the package deal you suggested because Fontenot, Marshall, and Colvin are extra pieces. In my opinion, giving up young ML players who are a vital part of the team or top positional prospects that we've been waiting for isn't the right route to go for Granderson. that's fine, but you aren't getting him that way. he's a very good player and there's no reason for the tigers to accept mediocrity for him. Its a starting point. A lot of people are seriously undervaluing Granderson if they arent willing to part with Theriot for him. Id do that in a heartbeat and happily live with Blanco at the 8 spot in the lineup. The above package is a starting point, but something along the lines of Theriot, Samardzjia(Im sure hed waive his NTC at this point), Colvin, Gaub/Stevens sounds very fair. If they demanded Marmol instead of Shark along with Theriot, even that would be worth it as long as were willing to go out another closer such as Valverde or Soriano. I agree it's a starting point, but I disagree with the notion that posters are undervaluing Granderson. If you look at the trade proposals, you would think we're trying to get Pujols, Halliday, or Hanley Ramirez. I would love to have Granderson, but he absolutely can't hit LHP. In other words, he's either a platoon player or a sure out against lefties. In my mind, that doesn't justify the kind of packages people are discussing. Granderson (2007-2009) vs. LHP - .202/.261/.309/.570 Aaron Miles (2007-2009) vs. LHP - .288/.355/.352/.707

I still don't understand why the Cubs aren't offering arbitration, especially with the Lilly situation. Go in offering him $7-8 million and he'll probably ask $9-10 million. Even if he wins, you've stabalized the starting rotation and you can trade him at the deadline if other pitchers step up.

Excellent question. Lets go over a short list of teams that could go after Granderson, a very solid center fielder who will be up for a contract soon: Red Sox: They have a solid center fielder in Ellsbury, but could Granderson be a cheaper option for them than Bay or Holliday? Mets: They're looking for another bat. Again, would be cheaper than Bay or Holliday. Braves: They have stated that they want another outfield bat, but they want a righty. Cardinals: Do they have the trade chips left after last season? and of course.... The Yankees: If they choose to let Matsui and Damon go, and not shell out for Bay or Holliday, he could be an option for them. With all the money on their books, they might prefer a trade over another massive contract. The Cubs are right up there. we definitely have the need for a center fielder. Granderson would fit our bill. Hes owed 5.5 mil in 2010, and then goes up to 8.25 in '11 and 10 mil in '12 and then a 13 mil option for '13. I say we go for it. Maybe start with a package like Fontenot, Marshall, Colvin, and a prospect or 2, and see where it goes from there. I don't have a problem with the package deal you suggested because Fontenot, Marshall, and Colvin are extra pieces. In my opinion, giving up young ML players who are a vital part of the team or top positional prospects that we've been waiting for isn't the right route to go for Granderson.

I'll bet we're the only site suggesting 4-5 prospects or our starting SS and closer for Granderson.

I think his value would be in flipping him to some other team. Give me Baker or Baker/Fontenot.

Sign Holliday, Bay, and Lackey. DFA Soriano (pay full contract).

From a video on Foxsports: 1. Trade Bradley to Texas picking up most of the contract and apologize to Ricketts for signing him. 2. Sign Figgins to play 2B and leadoff. 3. Sign Valverde to close and leave Marmol in set up role. What an idiot! His solutions are just to spend and buy every player you need.

It will be interesting to see the kind of offers they get from other teams.

I found this response interesting considering your user name. Are you friends with Dick Cheney?

i like how you have laid this out but i really think people are overlooking vitters in this case. i know castro is Mr. Hype right now, but I still contend that Vitters is the #1 prospect in the system, with castro coming in at #2 it seems. Granderson is in NO way worth a top 1 or 2 prospect IMO. If our system hasn't quite reached the point where you can't acquire a player like Granderson without giving up your top boys, you simply pass on the deal. Granderson is not worth a top prospect. I do like how you laid it out but some of those scenarios are too much for a guy who isn't exactly an all star. People are overhyping granderson too much, i mean i think the guy would be a huge pickup, but a pickup not worth more than mid level prospects. I totally agree with you. Some of these packages look like we're going after Hanley Ramirez or Roy Halliday not Curtis Granderson. Granderson is a perfect fit for the Cubs, but he's not worth trading our top prospects plus creating a new hole on the field. As BCVM22 pointed out, he's atrocious against LHP. His suggestion of platooning him with someone like Reed Johnson is a great idea, but not after giving up half your farm system for him. Cub fans have waited a long time for positional prospects like Vitters and Castro, so they should be considered almost "untouchable".

As Davell posted (page 1), if you can get Granderson without giving up our top prospects (Vitters, Castro, etc.) or a major piece of the starting lineup (Theriot, Marmol, etc.) then it's a no-brainer. I don't think Hendry is going to tinker with the established roster (Theriot, Marmol, etc.) because it would open one hole to fill another. Hopefully Hendry can get a Bradley deal done soon so that he can get around to making other deals. Nothing can be done until this Bradley mess is over.

That has been the point that I have made in all of my posts about Bradley. Let's get a role player for the 2010 Cubs rather than a minor leaguer (or 2) who will never reach the ML and we still have to pay most of Bradley's contract. That's one reason I brought up Rowand as an option quite a while ago. Burrell and Guillen are just a waste of time and energy because neither one has a place (or a role) on the 2010 Cubs. Millwood, by far, would be the best option of those rumored.

As of 9:30 p.m. last night according to FoxSports: The Cubs and Rays continue to discuss a Milton Bradley-for-Pat Burrell trade, but money remains a major obstacle. Burrell will earn $9 million next season, while Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years. The Rays want the Cubs to pay the vast majority of the difference. The teams are a mere $2 million to $3 million apart over the two years, one source said. The source described the negotiations as "worse than Chinese water torture." Another said, "I wish cattle prods were legal." So the way that I figure, the Cubs will probably pay $6 million to make Bradley go away and then another $5-6 million to flip Burrell to an AL team. I'm sure Ricketts will take pleasure in the fact that they didn't have to pay $12 million of Bradley's contract in a fuzzy-accounting PR move.

Good thing neither of them play defense, not to mention Granderson had some strange home/road splits last year. If Lou was smart enough to platoon him, we'd be getting a relatively cheap, .900 OPS CF who by all accounts plays pretty good defense I would rather have Bradley, Castro, and Marmol over Granderson and paying some team $10MM or so to take Bradley Sure Granderson's defense is better, but I don't think it is that much better to justify the expense. I think you can forget about keeping Bradley as an option. I can't really see how the Cubs would match up with the Tigers on a blockbuster deal like Granderson. I think it would take a Castro or Vitters (both near untouchables) from the minors and/or Marmol or Theriot from the ML roster. I wish the Bradley deal would happen so the Cubs could move on.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed. Isn't their owner in dire financial straits? So they are paying their entire team what the Cubs are paying Soriano, Lee and Zambrano combined and they are in financial trouble? Wow Actually, I believe that figure only takes into account what they are paying about 3-4 guys in 2010. They still have to field a 25 man roster. And their owner has fefaulted on some debt, I believe. You're right about what their payroll covering 3-4 players, but if they traded Millwood to the Cubs their 2010 payroll would be $33 million for Young, Bradley, Kinsler, Catalanotto (former player), and Padilla (former player). That leaves 22 spots that were filled this year by 2 guys making between $1-$2 million and 20 guys making less than $1 million. Giving all of those players 50% raises still leaves them about $20 million better off than this year. Keeping Millwood and giving the others the 50% raises still comes out about $5 million ahead.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed. Isn't their owner in dire financial straits? So they are paying their entire team what the Cubs are paying Soriano, Lee and Zambrano combined and they are in financial trouble? Wow Actually, I believe that figure only takes into account what they are paying about 3-4 guys in 2010. They still have to field a 25 man roster. And their owner has fefaulted on some debt, I believe. You're right about what their payroll covering 3-4 players, but if they traded Millwood to the Cubs their 2010 payroll would be $33 million for Young, Bradley, Kinsler, Catalanotto (former player), and Padilla (former player). That leaves 22 spots that were filled this year by 2 guys making between $1-$2 million and 20 guys making less than $1 million. Giving all of those players 50% raises still leaves them about $20 million better off than this year. Keeping Millwood and giving the others the 50% raises still comes out about $5 million ahead.

I'm not quite sure I understand the idea of them trading a young, inexpensive pitcher under their control for 2 more years to straighten out their bloated payroll unless they want to include him as enticement to take on one of their really bad contract players. Trading Jackson for "young, inexpensive pieces" doesn't solve very much of their bloated payroll. He only made $2.2 million last year.

The reports that I've read say the Rangers want Bradley only if the Cubs pay a big portion of his contract. I know the Rangers have money issues and I understand trying to make the best deal possible, but I don't understand all of this poor-mouthing. Their payroll for 2010 is $39 million (a drop of $37 million) without including Millwood as part of a deal. Including Millwood would put their payroll at $27 million (a decrease of $49 million from 2009). Today's Tribune wonders if they would send a couple of middle-level prospects for Bradley if the Cubs pay $9 - $10 million of the $21 million owed.

Well at least they have the right manager to handle rebuilding with youth. =D>

It's starting to sound like our original discussion about Bradley. Everybody wants him as long as we pay most of his contract or take back a worse contract.

Foxsports: CHICAGO - The idea, while described as a longshot, is at least one way for the Cubs to trade outfielder Milton Bradley. Bradley to the Blue Jays. First baseman Lyle Overbay to the Mets. Second baseman Luis Castillo to the Cubs. The teams have discussed the framework of such a deal, though not in direct fashion, according to major-league sources. The Cubs spoke to the Mets about Bradley-for-Castillo, while the Mets spoke to the Jays about Bradley-for-Overbay, sources say. The Rays, however, remain the team most interested in Bradley, sources say, proposing a Pat Burrell-for-Bradley trade. Burrell and Bradley each will make $9 million in 2010. The Cubs would need to pick up a significant portion of Bradley's $12 million salary in �11 for a deal to work.

I think the only way Lee agrees to wave his NTC is if he's given an extension that makes him hard to trade. At this point he's basically untradeable. Gonzelez for Phil Hughes, I could see that one happening if the Yankees didn't have Tex. How about Gonzelez for Bucholtz and Jed Lowrie? I think the Padres can get a lot more than either one of those proposals. I would think 3-4 young players/good prospects.

Put Lee at SS, move Theriot to 2B, and put Zambrano in CF when he's not pitching. \:D/