MLB Trade Rumors and a number of other sources report the Cubs are interested in signing free agent Carlos Pena to play first base. I sure hope this isn't true. I mean, how can you even think Pena improves this team. Pena is 32 years old. He moped around the league for six or seven years before he signed with Tampa and had a break out season in 2007. Since then his production has steadily declined, reaching its nadir last season when he batted .196 and struck out once in every three ABs. Sure he's good for 30 HRs and plays well defensively, but this is just the sort of signing that is likely to drive Cubs fans crazy, myself included. These numbers over the past several seasons indicate a player who had a couple of good years but whose bat is slowing down or a player who had a good run but whose weaknesses have been exposed.
In contrast, the Cubs, should they be unable to unearth a suitable candidate, might just discover that they already have Carlos Pena in the person of Tyler Colvin. Colvin hit 8 fewer HRs in 2010 than Pena in roughly 100 fewer ABs. He stuck out around once in every four ABs. He didn't walk as often as Pena, but then his OBP was about the same because his BA was nearly 60 points higher.
So playing every day, assuming he can learn the new position, Colvin brings comparable production at a fraction of the cost. After all, this will be his second big league season, so he is working for the minimum wage. Pena costs you $5 million. Colvin is 24 years old, so there is way more upside to this player.
Go figure. But then again the Cubs brain trust is led by Jim Hendry. So go figure again. Everyone seems to think the free agent market for first basemen in heavy this year, and it is until you look at the quality. Adam Dunn is the only legitimate star among the lot and he has serious limitations as a player, besides being expensive. Everybody else is washed up. Next year's crop is the big one, potentially including Fielder, Pujols, and Gonzalez. The Cubs have no chance to grab the first two, but they might just be able to match up with the Padres to get Gonzalez in a trade before free agency. He should be their goal, and if they can't land him, well, that's that. They can do a lot better than Pena, that's for sure.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Free Agents
The Cubs are rapidly seeing some of their presumed free agent targets slip away. I thought Victor Martinez was a possible fit for 1B, but he has signed with the Tigers for probably more than he is worth. Aubrey Huff - not one of my favorite candidates - has predictably re-signed with the Giants.
That leaves Adam Dunn still on the market. Dunn is expensive and not a good fit for the Cubs. Also Carlos Pena, a cheaper alternative who gives you just as many if not more strikeouts, solid defense, home run power, and a batting average last year just south of the Mendoza line.
You really wonder what if any plan the Cubs and Hendry have devised. It certainly is a big secret so far. As for 1B, they are left with the acceptable options of trying Tyler Colvin there or trading for Adrian Gonzalez if he is really on the market. Gonzalez would likely cost them Colvin, Gorzelanny, and one or two lesser prospects. Plus a commitment of four more years at $15 million plus to wrap him up.
The Cubs have also been thought to be looking for a free agent pitcher. In earlier entries, I've made the case for going big and trying to land Cliff Lee. This would take a five or six year contract at $20 million plus. I don't think the Cubs are in this game, though pitchers like this do not come around very often and if you can get one, well, you should pull the trigger.
Putting Lee on the side, there isn't much around. Jon Garland, who might have been a decent fit, has signed with the Dodgers. That leaves a bunch of guys who were once good, but are coming off injuries or bad years. Chris Toman, in the Miami Herald, talks about five of these, namely, Brandon Webb, Eric Bedard, Jeff Francis, Chris Young, and Jeremy Bonderman. Any of the five would come cheap with an incentive-driven one-year plus option deal. I could see taking a chance on Webb, Bedard, or Bonderman, but they are not exactly guys you can count on big time.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure the Cubs need to take a chance on anyone who is not demonstrably better than the arms they have now. They finished the season with good pitching even though Silva and Gorzelanny were on the shelf. Zambrano and Dempster would have to return to their old form, but they pretty much did so last year. Wells slumped last year, but I still think he can be a reliable starter for them. Coleman also showed some ability as a starter. Coleman would likely fight it out with Gorzelanny and Silva for the remaining spots in the rotation if the roster were to remain unchanged.
Not the best situation to be sure. I've got no use for Gorzelanny at all and Silva is a major question mark. The Cubs might do well to sign Kerry Wood to share the setup role with Marshall, which would free up Cashner to possibly move into the rotation, a role he was being groomed for anyway until he was called upon for emergency duty last year.
Lets not forget that the Cubs have a wealth of pitching talent coming through the farm system, some of whom, like Chris Archer, for example, look to be special and not that far away from the big leagues. So unless you are going to go big for a Cliff Lee or trade young players or prospects for a pitcher like Zack Greinke, you might be better advised to play a waiting game.
That leaves Adam Dunn still on the market. Dunn is expensive and not a good fit for the Cubs. Also Carlos Pena, a cheaper alternative who gives you just as many if not more strikeouts, solid defense, home run power, and a batting average last year just south of the Mendoza line.
You really wonder what if any plan the Cubs and Hendry have devised. It certainly is a big secret so far. As for 1B, they are left with the acceptable options of trying Tyler Colvin there or trading for Adrian Gonzalez if he is really on the market. Gonzalez would likely cost them Colvin, Gorzelanny, and one or two lesser prospects. Plus a commitment of four more years at $15 million plus to wrap him up.
The Cubs have also been thought to be looking for a free agent pitcher. In earlier entries, I've made the case for going big and trying to land Cliff Lee. This would take a five or six year contract at $20 million plus. I don't think the Cubs are in this game, though pitchers like this do not come around very often and if you can get one, well, you should pull the trigger.
Putting Lee on the side, there isn't much around. Jon Garland, who might have been a decent fit, has signed with the Dodgers. That leaves a bunch of guys who were once good, but are coming off injuries or bad years. Chris Toman, in the Miami Herald, talks about five of these, namely, Brandon Webb, Eric Bedard, Jeff Francis, Chris Young, and Jeremy Bonderman. Any of the five would come cheap with an incentive-driven one-year plus option deal. I could see taking a chance on Webb, Bedard, or Bonderman, but they are not exactly guys you can count on big time.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure the Cubs need to take a chance on anyone who is not demonstrably better than the arms they have now. They finished the season with good pitching even though Silva and Gorzelanny were on the shelf. Zambrano and Dempster would have to return to their old form, but they pretty much did so last year. Wells slumped last year, but I still think he can be a reliable starter for them. Coleman also showed some ability as a starter. Coleman would likely fight it out with Gorzelanny and Silva for the remaining spots in the rotation if the roster were to remain unchanged.
Not the best situation to be sure. I've got no use for Gorzelanny at all and Silva is a major question mark. The Cubs might do well to sign Kerry Wood to share the setup role with Marshall, which would free up Cashner to possibly move into the rotation, a role he was being groomed for anyway until he was called upon for emergency duty last year.
Lets not forget that the Cubs have a wealth of pitching talent coming through the farm system, some of whom, like Chris Archer, for example, look to be special and not that far away from the big leagues. So unless you are going to go big for a Cliff Lee or trade young players or prospects for a pitcher like Zack Greinke, you might be better advised to play a waiting game.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Ricketts Play
When the Cubs ownership changed hands, some friends of mine with maybe more insight and inside dope than me suggested that we would long for the days of the Tribune's corporate ownership sooner than we ever imagined. Well, maybe not the current batch of bankrupt blockheads who managed to sell off the only really profitable division of their empire, but it makes you wonder in a way about the crisis of American capitalism in a nutshell.
Anyway, needless to say everybody is weighing in on the great plan, and so far the verdict is not so good for the Ricketts team. You wonder, for one thing, who is doing their PR and whether they ought to think about at a minimum hiring competent hucksters for a change. The Tribune guys at least paid their own way even though they used their brand ownership and muscle to push around everyone who got in their way. Here is a good selection of articles and opinion, pro, objective, and con. Mostly con. There is even a rather sensible tongue in cheek suggestion from Ed Sherman at Crain's Chicago Business that they might seek state aid in financing the remainder of Alfonso Soriano's contract, about $72 million.
In brief, this is the deal. The Cubs get to welch on their original agreement to develop the triangle of land between Waveland, Clark, and the stadium in return for the City letting them expand the bleachers. In a novel legal argument, they claim that that agreement was negotiated by the previous ownership, and even though they have continued to exist as a corporate entity, well, hey, that was the other guy's business, not theirs. This kind of ploy usually doesn't sit well even with politicians. Even a shill like Tom Tunney seems to have his doubts.
The Ricketts proposal amounts to a kind of confusing financial shell game. In essence, though, it a pretty much a scam, though a somewhat more inventive one that, say, the White Sox play for a new stadium where they just threatened to move to Florida. The Cubs want public financing to make all the necessary renovations to the Wrigley Field infrastructure, new clubhouses, kitchens, batting cages, weight rooms, whatever structural interventions are necessary.
Now all this stuff is stuff that should be done, but the problem is that as far as Wrigley Field itself goes, the structure itself has run up against a situation of diminishing returns. All the deferred maintenance mentioned above doesn't add much to the bottom line unless you double ticket prices or something like that because attendance, the basis of the Cubs cash machine, has maxed out. So no doubt the fans experience and the players experience is enhanced, but there's nothing in it for the owners, is there?
So their first thought, of course, is to have somebody else pay for it, or, better yet, in a flurry of mumbo-jumbo economics that would put Milo Minderbinder from Catch 22 to shame, nobody pays for it really because we just use the tax that would be paid anyway when it increases over twenty years and just the part the Cubs ticket buyers would pay anyway that would probably be used for useless junk like schools or stoplights or something, and, see, we get a new Wrigley Field that will last for generations until some mutant ivy eats away the bricks in the outfield wall.
Meanwhile, the Ricketts can use their own money or money they raise privately to develop the new Wrigleyville. This part is a little vague. It seems to consist of the famous Triangle Building and some sort of mall that runs along Clifton Avenue west of the fire station that is populated by happy, suburban, white families munching hot dogs and buying lots of Cubs paraphernalia.
It looks a lot like Wrigleyville West, which the Cubs have managed to con the citizens of Mesa and Arizona into building in order to keep their spring training facilities in Arizona. Or kind of like The Glen, all ersatz gimcrackery that is supposed to give you the genuine Wrigleyville experience without the concomitant urban grit.
I've lived within a mile or so of Wrigley Field in various rentals and condos for most of my adult life. I've seen the environs develop from seedy to gritty to gentrified to the current state of something like fratified if that can be a word. But the thing is that that growth and development, though it is centered around the ballpark, has been organic and basically real whether you like it or not or whether you feel comfortable there or not. You're in a city, a big city, and cities are messy places. You don't have to live here and you don't have to visit. Neither do you have to have those environs developed at a considerable public subsidy to make money for people who are already rich enough to pay for it on their own.
Anyway, needless to say everybody is weighing in on the great plan, and so far the verdict is not so good for the Ricketts team. You wonder, for one thing, who is doing their PR and whether they ought to think about at a minimum hiring competent hucksters for a change. The Tribune guys at least paid their own way even though they used their brand ownership and muscle to push around everyone who got in their way. Here is a good selection of articles and opinion, pro, objective, and con. Mostly con. There is even a rather sensible tongue in cheek suggestion from Ed Sherman at Crain's Chicago Business that they might seek state aid in financing the remainder of Alfonso Soriano's contract, about $72 million.
In brief, this is the deal. The Cubs get to welch on their original agreement to develop the triangle of land between Waveland, Clark, and the stadium in return for the City letting them expand the bleachers. In a novel legal argument, they claim that that agreement was negotiated by the previous ownership, and even though they have continued to exist as a corporate entity, well, hey, that was the other guy's business, not theirs. This kind of ploy usually doesn't sit well even with politicians. Even a shill like Tom Tunney seems to have his doubts.
The Ricketts proposal amounts to a kind of confusing financial shell game. In essence, though, it a pretty much a scam, though a somewhat more inventive one that, say, the White Sox play for a new stadium where they just threatened to move to Florida. The Cubs want public financing to make all the necessary renovations to the Wrigley Field infrastructure, new clubhouses, kitchens, batting cages, weight rooms, whatever structural interventions are necessary.
Now all this stuff is stuff that should be done, but the problem is that as far as Wrigley Field itself goes, the structure itself has run up against a situation of diminishing returns. All the deferred maintenance mentioned above doesn't add much to the bottom line unless you double ticket prices or something like that because attendance, the basis of the Cubs cash machine, has maxed out. So no doubt the fans experience and the players experience is enhanced, but there's nothing in it for the owners, is there?
So their first thought, of course, is to have somebody else pay for it, or, better yet, in a flurry of mumbo-jumbo economics that would put Milo Minderbinder from Catch 22 to shame, nobody pays for it really because we just use the tax that would be paid anyway when it increases over twenty years and just the part the Cubs ticket buyers would pay anyway that would probably be used for useless junk like schools or stoplights or something, and, see, we get a new Wrigley Field that will last for generations until some mutant ivy eats away the bricks in the outfield wall.
Meanwhile, the Ricketts can use their own money or money they raise privately to develop the new Wrigleyville. This part is a little vague. It seems to consist of the famous Triangle Building and some sort of mall that runs along Clifton Avenue west of the fire station that is populated by happy, suburban, white families munching hot dogs and buying lots of Cubs paraphernalia.
It looks a lot like Wrigleyville West, which the Cubs have managed to con the citizens of Mesa and Arizona into building in order to keep their spring training facilities in Arizona. Or kind of like The Glen, all ersatz gimcrackery that is supposed to give you the genuine Wrigleyville experience without the concomitant urban grit.
I've lived within a mile or so of Wrigley Field in various rentals and condos for most of my adult life. I've seen the environs develop from seedy to gritty to gentrified to the current state of something like fratified if that can be a word. But the thing is that that growth and development, though it is centered around the ballpark, has been organic and basically real whether you like it or not or whether you feel comfortable there or not. You're in a city, a big city, and cities are messy places. You don't have to live here and you don't have to visit. Neither do you have to have those environs developed at a considerable public subsidy to make money for people who are already rich enough to pay for it on their own.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sandberg Moves On
The Phillies hired Ryne Sandberg to manage their AAA farm team. This is a good deal for Ryno and a sad day for the Cubs in most respects. You have to believe there is an understanding here between the former Cub and the Phillies organization. The Phils manager Charlie Manuel is 66 years old, so you have to figure Sandberg is next in line and that there will be very little controversy about it when the time comes for Manuel to retire, which looks to happen next year.
I rather hope for Ryno's sake the Phillies, unlike the Cubs, keep up their end of the implicit bargain. I remarked in an earlier post, when I was evaluating Jim Hendry, that the Cubs and the Phillies have been operating in pretty much the same arena for most of the past decade. They have a similar budget and so on. But the Phillies have made so many more superior decisions and they have met with so much greater success than the Cubs. I hate to say so, but, sentiment aside, Sandberg will be inheriting a much better team in a much more stable organization if things work out for him in the end.
I rather hope for Ryno's sake the Phillies, unlike the Cubs, keep up their end of the implicit bargain. I remarked in an earlier post, when I was evaluating Jim Hendry, that the Cubs and the Phillies have been operating in pretty much the same arena for most of the past decade. They have a similar budget and so on. But the Phillies have made so many more superior decisions and they have met with so much greater success than the Cubs. I hate to say so, but, sentiment aside, Sandberg will be inheriting a much better team in a much more stable organization if things work out for him in the end.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Cubs Interested in Cliff Lee, Maybe
According to MLB Trade Rumors, the Cubs are among seven or eight teams that have inquired about Cliff Lee. Hard to read too much into this at such an early stage, but it is an intriguing possibility. Signing Lee is an expensive proposition, but he is one of the best pitchers in all of baseball. For the Cubs, it would instantly give them a pretty formidable rotation and also serve as a signal that they have finally recognized that the strength of their team and their minor league system is pitching, that pitching and defense matter a lot, and that these are the things you build a team around.
The Cubs freed up more than enough cash to sign a guy like Lee when they dumped Lilly, Lee, Theriot, and Fontenot late last season and they will add to those savings when they let Nady walk, so even without freeing up salary by trading their own talent, they could afford one big splash. Probably that is all they are willing to make anyway.
As I say, there may not be much in it, but it indicates they are at least evaluating the possibility, which is a start.
The Cubs freed up more than enough cash to sign a guy like Lee when they dumped Lilly, Lee, Theriot, and Fontenot late last season and they will add to those savings when they let Nady walk, so even without freeing up salary by trading their own talent, they could afford one big splash. Probably that is all they are willing to make anyway.
As I say, there may not be much in it, but it indicates they are at least evaluating the possibility, which is a start.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Adrian Gonzalez Trade, A Low-Cost Option?
Bruce Levine writes on ESPN that given the Cubs flat payroll, they may be more likely to trade for a top-tier first baseman in the off-season. He thinks Adrian Gonzalez of the San Diego Padres is a likely target.
In yesterday's blog, I considered this possibility and talked about some of the issues connected with this approach. Gonzalez is a premier player. At his position, he is in a class with Texeira and Pujols. In short, he is a real difference maker, an instant franchise upgrade, and certainly a player that a major market team that the Cubs aspire to be should be going after.
Having said that, however, I just don't see this happening, at least not in the off-season. Nor do I see how this is a low-cost option. Nor do I really see how the Cubs match up with the Padres needs in terms of the personnel they have to offer.
First off, how does this save the Cubs money? Gonzalez makes $6 million now and is worth $15-$20 million per year in a four-year deal on the free agent market. He's certainly worth it. He is 29, so he likely has at least four good years left to whoever signs him. But that doesn't make him a bargain, does it? I mean, you are going to have to pay that money and to guarantee your investment, you are going to have to do it now, this year, in terms of an extension, and you are going to have to be sure you can negotiate that extension before you pull the trigger on the deal. The Cubs should be willing to spend this money and they actually could do so from the savings they accrued from trading Lilly and Lee and letting Nady walk. But lets not pretend this is a savings.
Also, even Levine mentions that the price in terms of players is three or four good prospects. I'd assume that at least one and probably more need to be major league ready. The Padres real need is hitting, and they are trading their best hitter, so you have to figure all or nearly all are going to have to be position players.
Do the Cubs have this kind of material to spare? The Cubs have a bunch of veteran bats who may or may not be an improvement over what the Padres have. I'm talking about Soriano and Byrd and Fukudome, but how do these guys appeal to the Padres? Each one of them earns twice as much as Gonzalez does now. And lets face it, hitting isn't exactly the Cubs long suit anyway.
Of course, half the Padres lineup filed for free agency, so their needs are many. The Cubs could offer Colvin in return and maybe one of their two catching prospects, Chirinos or Castillo. However, the Padres are easing Nick Hundley into a full-time starting role, so they are likely to be looking for a veteran backup.
After that, it is slim pickings, at least among players the Cubs consider top prospects or young players who have already made their mark. They are not likely to want to move Castro or Brett Jackson or even Brandan Guyer, nor should they consider it, and they probably shouldn't think about moving Chris Archer either. Maybe they could throw in Josh Vitters, although one of the few other positions where the Padres seem set is third base.
Cudos to Hendry if he can pull this off even if it costs him Colvin and one of the catchers, but I've got my doubts it can be done.
In yesterday's blog, I considered this possibility and talked about some of the issues connected with this approach. Gonzalez is a premier player. At his position, he is in a class with Texeira and Pujols. In short, he is a real difference maker, an instant franchise upgrade, and certainly a player that a major market team that the Cubs aspire to be should be going after.
Having said that, however, I just don't see this happening, at least not in the off-season. Nor do I see how this is a low-cost option. Nor do I really see how the Cubs match up with the Padres needs in terms of the personnel they have to offer.
First off, how does this save the Cubs money? Gonzalez makes $6 million now and is worth $15-$20 million per year in a four-year deal on the free agent market. He's certainly worth it. He is 29, so he likely has at least four good years left to whoever signs him. But that doesn't make him a bargain, does it? I mean, you are going to have to pay that money and to guarantee your investment, you are going to have to do it now, this year, in terms of an extension, and you are going to have to be sure you can negotiate that extension before you pull the trigger on the deal. The Cubs should be willing to spend this money and they actually could do so from the savings they accrued from trading Lilly and Lee and letting Nady walk. But lets not pretend this is a savings.
Also, even Levine mentions that the price in terms of players is three or four good prospects. I'd assume that at least one and probably more need to be major league ready. The Padres real need is hitting, and they are trading their best hitter, so you have to figure all or nearly all are going to have to be position players.
Do the Cubs have this kind of material to spare? The Cubs have a bunch of veteran bats who may or may not be an improvement over what the Padres have. I'm talking about Soriano and Byrd and Fukudome, but how do these guys appeal to the Padres? Each one of them earns twice as much as Gonzalez does now. And lets face it, hitting isn't exactly the Cubs long suit anyway.
Of course, half the Padres lineup filed for free agency, so their needs are many. The Cubs could offer Colvin in return and maybe one of their two catching prospects, Chirinos or Castillo. However, the Padres are easing Nick Hundley into a full-time starting role, so they are likely to be looking for a veteran backup.
After that, it is slim pickings, at least among players the Cubs consider top prospects or young players who have already made their mark. They are not likely to want to move Castro or Brett Jackson or even Brandan Guyer, nor should they consider it, and they probably shouldn't think about moving Chris Archer either. Maybe they could throw in Josh Vitters, although one of the few other positions where the Padres seem set is third base.
Cudos to Hendry if he can pull this off even if it costs him Colvin and one of the catchers, but I've got my doubts it can be done.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Nick Johnson?
Everyone pretty much agrees the Cubs need a left-handed hitting first baseman if they are to contend in 2011, or even if they are going to play decent baseball for a change. The Cubs don't have a minor league prospect waiting in the wings. Xavier Nady, who finished out the season more or less as the last man standing, showed he could not hit for the kind of average or power you expect from this position and is likely headed out the door as a free agent. So it's not surprising the papers and blogs are full of speculation about who the Cubs might show interest in signing.
One rumor, from the Sun-Times has it that Jim Hendry is looking for a low-ball option like Nick Johnson. Johnson was never what you would call a bad player, but neither would he be considered a star. He is one of the most patient hitters in the major leagues, something the Cubs could surely use, but he has only doubles power and he is an indifferent fielder at best. Plus he is coming off two seasons where serious injuries drastically limited his playing time, and, like Nady before him, there are legitimate doubts that he has fully recovered.
Of course, Hendry loves this kind of player. He's a cheap acquisition and you might just get lucky. More likely you will wind up with the second coming of Cliff Floyd or Xavier Nady. Were the Cubs to settle on a guy like Johnson, it would tell you two things about the their plans. One is they don't think they are serious contenders next season. That judgment, in itself, is wrong-headed. The Cubs play in a weak division and there is every reason to believe they can be contenders next year if they make the right off-season moves. Arguably, they fielded worse teams in 2002 and 2006 and went on to win divisions the following years. For a GM of a major market team to think this way is always a bad thing.
Anyway, the second thing it tells you is that the team is treading water for no apparent reason. Signing a stopgap is OK if you are waiting for a major prospect to mature, but, as we noted above, there is no apparent prospect to await. Unless you intend to bypass the 2011 free agent market in favor of 2012 when Prince Fielder and Adrian Gonzalez become available.
The problem here is that moving either of these players is basically a budget cutting decision for their current teams. Neither the Brewers nor the Padres think they can afford to sign them to extensions or new contracts when they hit free agency, so they are likely going to want to get something in return before that happens.
The Brewers can't be under any illusions that they are genuine contenders next year or are likely to be contenders before the trade deadline, so theoretically they might be looking for the best deal they can get now, especially if it involves good pitching. But I seriously doubt that either the Cubs or the Brewers are likely to swing a major deal in their own division, so I would have to assume the Cubs likely target would be Gonzalez.
Gonzalez would be a terrific acquisition, one of the best position players to hit the market in years. There is no real reason for the Padres to deal him now because they were serious contenders last year and he is a bargain for them at the $6 million or so he currently earns. They'd have to fill several holes to trade him now and they need cheap hitters. The Cubs have expensive "hitters" to trade and cheap young hitters they need time to evaluate. It's also possible the Padres will contend again next season as they did last, in which case they might choose not to market Gonzalez at the trade deadline.
So the bottom line on these strategies is they are rather iffy propositions and expensive ones as well, both in terms of the quality of personnel you'd need to give in exchange and the kind of money you would need to commit to renegotiate their contracts before free agency to keep them around and make your investment worthwhile. If the Cubs are playing this game, they had better have a pretty fair idea of what it would cost them in both respects and whether they are prepared to pay the price, or they had better be certain these guys will be available on the free agent market this time next year.
So if you think the Johnson strategy is too timid or unsound, you are left with two other options. One is the free agent route this year. The main candidates on the rumor mill here, at least according to Paul Sullivan of the Tribune, are Adam Dunn, Aubrey Huff, and Victor Martinez. Of course, Adam Dunn is the celebrity candidate, but I have to confess that I don't like Dunn as a Cub at all. He either hits a home run, walk, or strikes out, and he is an embarrassment at any position he plays. The Cubs have too many one-dimensional players who are really not ballplayers at all, Soriano for a start, and a team can only carry so many of these slugs, namely less than one.
You can get away with a platoon player like this, maybe a role player, but that's about it in the NL. Dunn is also expensive and wants a four year deal, having already turned down a pretty good three year offer from the Nationals. Some free advice here: we already have enough long-term deals weighing this club down. Dunn is 31 years old, which means you are getting him three years into his most productive years, so you can realistically project him to have one or maybe two stellar seasons, stellar seasons in terms of what he has generally produced in the big leagues, which is home runs, walks, strikeouts and errors. And then he will begin to slack off. I'd pass on this guy.
Huff has always been a Jim Hendry favorite. This is an obvious danger for Cubs fans. Huff will be 34 before the start of the season and he is coming off a career year. He'll probably re-sign with the Giants anyway. Lets hope so.
That leaves Victor Martinez, who is actually the most interesting notion if the Cubs want to take the free agent route. Martinez will be 32 next year and has primarily been a catcher in his career with the Indians and Red Sox. But he has played first base quite a bit and has not done badly. He is a pretty patient switch-hitter with home run power who hits for average as well. On the whole, I could live with this resolution and it might be the most affordable option in the long run.
The other possible strategy would be to fill the position in house. The likely candidate would have to be Tyler Colvin. It's not so bad an option as might appear at first glance. Right now the Cubs are loaded with relatively unproductive or marginal free agent outfielders who are expensive and not readily moved. It also looks as if they have two legitimate outfield prospects in Brett Jackson and Brandon Guyer. Both are fast, solid defensively, hit for average, and show some plate discipline. So you've got yourself a bit of a log-jam out there and players like Colvin will have to fight for playing time at best. Of course, you could recognize that Soriano and Byrd and, to a certain extent, Fukudome are basically platoon players and you could work out some interesting outfield rotations based on this recognition. But that really isn't the Cubs way, is it?
I'd have to take the distinctly minority view and say that - much as I would dearly love to see the Cubs dump Soriano - the guy in the outfield who could be moved to clear salary is not Fukudome, but Byrd. This would free up center field for Colvin, but if they don't do this or use Colvin as a chip to land a guy like Gonzalez or a first-rate pitcher, first base might be the answer for this kid. Right now his stats closely resemble Soriano's, but there is room for loads of improvement if he can learn some plate discipline. Since he can catch and generally play baseball, you can carry a pure slugger at first base for a while provided he improves and you can always unload him for something better if he does not.
One rumor, from the Sun-Times has it that Jim Hendry is looking for a low-ball option like Nick Johnson. Johnson was never what you would call a bad player, but neither would he be considered a star. He is one of the most patient hitters in the major leagues, something the Cubs could surely use, but he has only doubles power and he is an indifferent fielder at best. Plus he is coming off two seasons where serious injuries drastically limited his playing time, and, like Nady before him, there are legitimate doubts that he has fully recovered.
Of course, Hendry loves this kind of player. He's a cheap acquisition and you might just get lucky. More likely you will wind up with the second coming of Cliff Floyd or Xavier Nady. Were the Cubs to settle on a guy like Johnson, it would tell you two things about the their plans. One is they don't think they are serious contenders next season. That judgment, in itself, is wrong-headed. The Cubs play in a weak division and there is every reason to believe they can be contenders next year if they make the right off-season moves. Arguably, they fielded worse teams in 2002 and 2006 and went on to win divisions the following years. For a GM of a major market team to think this way is always a bad thing.
Anyway, the second thing it tells you is that the team is treading water for no apparent reason. Signing a stopgap is OK if you are waiting for a major prospect to mature, but, as we noted above, there is no apparent prospect to await. Unless you intend to bypass the 2011 free agent market in favor of 2012 when Prince Fielder and Adrian Gonzalez become available.
The problem here is that moving either of these players is basically a budget cutting decision for their current teams. Neither the Brewers nor the Padres think they can afford to sign them to extensions or new contracts when they hit free agency, so they are likely going to want to get something in return before that happens.
The Brewers can't be under any illusions that they are genuine contenders next year or are likely to be contenders before the trade deadline, so theoretically they might be looking for the best deal they can get now, especially if it involves good pitching. But I seriously doubt that either the Cubs or the Brewers are likely to swing a major deal in their own division, so I would have to assume the Cubs likely target would be Gonzalez.
Gonzalez would be a terrific acquisition, one of the best position players to hit the market in years. There is no real reason for the Padres to deal him now because they were serious contenders last year and he is a bargain for them at the $6 million or so he currently earns. They'd have to fill several holes to trade him now and they need cheap hitters. The Cubs have expensive "hitters" to trade and cheap young hitters they need time to evaluate. It's also possible the Padres will contend again next season as they did last, in which case they might choose not to market Gonzalez at the trade deadline.
So the bottom line on these strategies is they are rather iffy propositions and expensive ones as well, both in terms of the quality of personnel you'd need to give in exchange and the kind of money you would need to commit to renegotiate their contracts before free agency to keep them around and make your investment worthwhile. If the Cubs are playing this game, they had better have a pretty fair idea of what it would cost them in both respects and whether they are prepared to pay the price, or they had better be certain these guys will be available on the free agent market this time next year.
So if you think the Johnson strategy is too timid or unsound, you are left with two other options. One is the free agent route this year. The main candidates on the rumor mill here, at least according to Paul Sullivan of the Tribune, are Adam Dunn, Aubrey Huff, and Victor Martinez. Of course, Adam Dunn is the celebrity candidate, but I have to confess that I don't like Dunn as a Cub at all. He either hits a home run, walk, or strikes out, and he is an embarrassment at any position he plays. The Cubs have too many one-dimensional players who are really not ballplayers at all, Soriano for a start, and a team can only carry so many of these slugs, namely less than one.
You can get away with a platoon player like this, maybe a role player, but that's about it in the NL. Dunn is also expensive and wants a four year deal, having already turned down a pretty good three year offer from the Nationals. Some free advice here: we already have enough long-term deals weighing this club down. Dunn is 31 years old, which means you are getting him three years into his most productive years, so you can realistically project him to have one or maybe two stellar seasons, stellar seasons in terms of what he has generally produced in the big leagues, which is home runs, walks, strikeouts and errors. And then he will begin to slack off. I'd pass on this guy.
Huff has always been a Jim Hendry favorite. This is an obvious danger for Cubs fans. Huff will be 34 before the start of the season and he is coming off a career year. He'll probably re-sign with the Giants anyway. Lets hope so.
That leaves Victor Martinez, who is actually the most interesting notion if the Cubs want to take the free agent route. Martinez will be 32 next year and has primarily been a catcher in his career with the Indians and Red Sox. But he has played first base quite a bit and has not done badly. He is a pretty patient switch-hitter with home run power who hits for average as well. On the whole, I could live with this resolution and it might be the most affordable option in the long run.
The other possible strategy would be to fill the position in house. The likely candidate would have to be Tyler Colvin. It's not so bad an option as might appear at first glance. Right now the Cubs are loaded with relatively unproductive or marginal free agent outfielders who are expensive and not readily moved. It also looks as if they have two legitimate outfield prospects in Brett Jackson and Brandon Guyer. Both are fast, solid defensively, hit for average, and show some plate discipline. So you've got yourself a bit of a log-jam out there and players like Colvin will have to fight for playing time at best. Of course, you could recognize that Soriano and Byrd and, to a certain extent, Fukudome are basically platoon players and you could work out some interesting outfield rotations based on this recognition. But that really isn't the Cubs way, is it?
I'd have to take the distinctly minority view and say that - much as I would dearly love to see the Cubs dump Soriano - the guy in the outfield who could be moved to clear salary is not Fukudome, but Byrd. This would free up center field for Colvin, but if they don't do this or use Colvin as a chip to land a guy like Gonzalez or a first-rate pitcher, first base might be the answer for this kid. Right now his stats closely resemble Soriano's, but there is room for loads of improvement if he can learn some plate discipline. Since he can catch and generally play baseball, you can carry a pure slugger at first base for a while provided he improves and you can always unload him for something better if he does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)