SB Nation - Aaron Rowand

Dan Uggla to the Giants, not happening?

craig — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:34:10 -0000

It turns out that the Giants are very concerned about their payroll cost and Danny may push it over the top.

The Giants have talked to the Marlins about second baseman Dan Uggla, but a trade appears unlikely.

"It's not going to go down, one source familiar with the discussions told ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick.

The biggest obstacle is financial as San Francisco is being held back by the large contracts of Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand. In addition, Tim Lincecum is in line for a huge raise.

Not really surprising since Danny doesn't come free. Not only must another club pay his salary, but they have to trade something the Marlins are willing to accept. It will be interesting to see how the Marlins front office plays the trading of Uggla. The only way the Marlins are going to get anything decent in return for the second baseman in the offseason is if they can convince the other major league clubs they are willing to hold to him should they not receive an offer to their liking. In other words, convince them this isn't a salary dump. The Marlins will get next to nothing if the other teams think the Marlins are just posturing and that there is no way they will enter into the 2010 season with Danny at second because of his salary. If the Marlins want the best trade value they can get, they must be willing to keep Uggla should the everyone else think they are bluffing. Whether they are willing to do this, remains to be seen.

Personally, I would like to see Danny in the starting lineup on opening day. But for that to happen, Loria will have to loosen the purse strings a little. Should Uggla be with the team on opening day, expect to hear trade rumors all season long.

Future Free Agent Mistake Power Rankings, 12/15

Grant — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:33:51 -0000

The offseason is quickly dividing the fanbase into two camps:

No moves is good moves. The longer we’re not hearing about a four-year deal to Adam LaRoche, the less likely we’re ever going to hear about one.
WHY AREN’T YOU DOING ANYTHING, SABES? THE MARINERS JUST SIGNED CLIFF LEE AND WE DON’T EVEN HAVE AN OFFER IN TO (hitter) YET?

In the interest of ruining that first sentence before I get a chance to back it up, I’m somewhere in the middle. When I watch the Mariners get a one-year rental to drastically upgrade their team, a part of me secretly envies them, even though I wouldn’t want the Giants to follow suit. They have a shiny new toy. I like shiny new toys. Scott Podsednik would be an itchy sweater made out of possum fur, but you knew that.

The big deals aren’t the only ones that are making me jealous, either. The Blue Jays acquired Michael Taylor from the Phillies for Roy Halladay, and then they turned right around and traded Taylor for Brett Wallace. Hot prospect-for-prospect action! The rarest kind! And while I have my guesses as to who came out ahead (the A’s), we won’t know for a few years. But right now, each team has a shiny new toy. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t trade Madison Bumgarner for Justin Smoak, but it’d be interesting, at least. We’re halfway through December, and we’re without any interesting. I could use some interesting.

You know what else is interesting? Scott Podsednik on a two-year deal. That’s interesting like a kitchen fire. Maybe interesting isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I’m scared of interesting and the Giants.

So with no news directly relating to the Giants, but with plenty of news reducing the options the Giants have in free agency, it’s time for another Future Free Agent Mistake Power Rankings. Who will be the Aaron Rowand of 2011? Well, Aaron Rowand, for one. But maybe he’ll have some overpaid company!

Scott Podsednik -- OF -- ↑

Number one with a bullet. A signing that in the best case provides marginal upgrade while swallowing most of a limited budget? Oh, sure, I’ll take two. I think it’s disturbing that a team could seriously think about Eugenio Velez as a leadoff hitter and corner outfielder. More disturbing? That Velez could outproduce the Podsednik from ’07 and ’08 with his thumbs taped together. But don’t worry: when 34-year-olds drastically improve, those gains usually stick. Or is it the other way around? This baseball stuff is confusing!

Adam LaRoche-- 1b -- ↑

It’s hard to be this high on the list when you’re a player who would improve the team over the internal options, but LaRoche’s ridiculous contract demands, combined with merely decent production, makes this a great chance to rowand the Giants into a corner by the end of the contract.

Marlon Byrd -- OF -- ↓

With Mike Cameron off the market, Byrd is one of the better center fielders, and it’s been almost two years since Sabean has signed a center fielder. His palms are sweaty, his mouth is dry, and his sponsor isn’t returning his calls. Mmmmm. An overpriced center fielder sounds pretty good right about now, especially when you’re still kicking yourself for missing out on Gary Matthews, Jr.

Jermaine Dye -- OF -- ↓

Sabean explicitly mentioned Dye as someone the Giants aren’t interested in. But I think that’s like when I tell my wife something like, "No, I don’t even really find Jessica Alba that attractive. Her earlobes aren’t symmetrical, and you know how I am about that." I have trust issues with our intrepid GM.

Mark DeRosa—3B/LF -- ↑

At the right price, I’d welcome DeRosa. He’s not going to get the right price. DeRosa’s decline last year might have been age related, but it might have been a BABIP-influenced fluke. I sure as heck wouldn’t commit millions to the latter theory, but if he’s starting in left field instead of Velez, I might be able to ignore the horrible contract for a year. And it will be a horrible contract.

Jason Bay-- OF -- ↑

He says he has no interest in the Giants. The Giants say they have no interest in him. There are still rumors floating around that the Giants really are interested. So when I read that Bay said he’s not interested in San Francisco, I’m guessing he said it while doing that money pantomime thing, rubbing his thumb and fingers together while he raises his eyebrows and gives you that look.

Garrett Atkins -- DH -- ↑

I’ll admit, the 2006 and 2007 versions are intriguing, but chasing after past glories only makes sense if it’s cheap. That, and Atkins is the worst defensive third baseman in the history of the game. Would it be in poor taste to suggest that Ron Santo has better range, even today? Yes? Okay, then I won’t write that. But Atkins is an abomination. Maybe he’s better at first, but he isn’t that likely to be a good enough hitter to displace Travis Ishikawa. I’d take Atkins over Ishikawa, but only for a few hundred thousand dollars’ difference.

Inconsequential Sub-Mediocre Free Agent Catcher -- C -- ↓

It’s going to happen, so the exact one – Miguel Olivo, Rod Barajas, Mike Sadek – doesn’t really matter. And as long as it isn’t a two-year deal, I can almost accept it, but you know whomever they acquire will play 150 games under Bochy. In GiantsLand, a catcher can make up for a .290 on-base percentage by calling a good game and handling a staff, so there’s no question that SMFAC will be more valuable than Buster Posey next year.

Johnny Damon -- OF -- ↓

He can probably still hit, and he isn’t Scott Podsednik. Heck, I think I might be in favor of a Damon deal at this point. The only problem is that if he’s going to take two years, he’ll probably just take it from the Yankees.

Hank Blalock -- 3B? -- ↓

No one is talking about him, and that scares me. I can imagine DeRosa, Nick Johnson, and LaRoche all taking other offers on the same day, leaving the Giants in a Garkoless panic.

I guess these rankings are, by design, doom-and-gloom. Maybe that’s not fair. But the Giants and free agency in the past few years have mixed like diarrhea and first dates. So, please, forgive me and the black cloud over my head.

NL West in Review: Center Fielders

Poseidon's Fist — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:00:29 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Don't forget about this guy.

Browse more photos »

Matt Kemp was a beast this season, but that doesn't mean the Dodgers had the best CF spot last season. For the second straight week, Los Angeles surprisingly gets pushed to second place by a team without a primary starter.

San Diego started the season with Scott Hairston and Jody Gerut platooning in center field, but by the All-Star break, both had been jettisoned, with the only returning position player being their new center fielder who had been in AAA all season to that point.

But don't let Petco Park and the constant new faces fool you. The Padres were strong in center field last season.


Teams	Players	Avg	HR	RBI	OBP	SLG	wOBA*	WAR
1. San Diego	6	.292	17	65	.356	.445	.358	5.37
2. Los Angeles	4	.292	24	98	.350	.472	.371	4.97
3. San Francisco	4	.266	17	79	.305	.419	.332	2.76
4. Colorado	4	.269	17	58	.345	.451	.341	2.14
5. Arizona	5	.219	17	61	.288	.379	.291	-1.18

Hairston saved almost all his San Diego offense for his CF starts, posting a ridiculous .458 wOBA in 148 PA. His eventual replacement, Tony Gwynn Jr, had the best OBP in the division outside of Hairston matched with fantastic defensive play. That was enough to supersede the Dodgers, who had neutral defense and just a 13 point wOBA* edge. This can teach us two things - it is indeed a team game, and don't discredit the Padres' offense, as Petco Park can mask a lot.

All the proof and stats are under the fold.

Here's your visual breakdown, with the CF positional RAR set at +2.5. The Dodgers' team UZR is indeed included; however, it is equal to exactly zero:

The bottom three slots of the NL West's 23 center fielders are occupied by Diamondbacks. For the full player rankings, click here.

With three years and $36million remaining on that bad contract, Rowand is sufficiently entrenched in center field in the near future. He had a complete no-trade clause last season, but has a "limited no-trade clause" each of the three years. I'm fine if he stays in San Francisco until 2012.

Random Weekend Question: Favorite/Least Favorite Non-O

Stacey — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:00:14 -0000

I saw this question posed as a FanPost on another site and thought it was a pretty good idea for a slow, pre-Thanskgiving weekend. So who's your favorite baseball player that's not an Oriole? Least favorite non-O? Why?

Some of my favorites:

Matt Garza - He seems a little bit insane, and I feel like he's going to be crazy good.
Roy Halladay - I just love everything about him. I saw a rumor the Dodgers are trying to trade for him. That'd be nice because, you know.
Joe Nathan - Once when the Orioles were playing the Twins, Nathan wasn't available because his wife was having a baby. He got to the stadium just as the game was ending and while the Twins were shaking hands on the field he was out on the field in his street clothes handing out cigars and I thought it was the best.
Curtis Granderson - Probably my favorite non-Oriole. I love the way he plays CF, I love how involved he is in the community, I love that he writes a column on Yahoo sports, I love his tall socks, I love it all.

Some Least Favorites:

Ian Kinsler - I feel like he steals Brian Roberts' thunder. And his face bugs me.
Khalil Greene - Remember when people would talk periodically about the Orioles trading for this guy? I never understood it at all and I think started to resent him a little because of it. Why would the Orioles want this guy?
Aaron Rowand - He's not even good! He dives all over the place, so what?
Mark Teixeira - You know why.

Why Tim Lincecum Should Win the Cy Young

Grant — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:16:15 -0000

He's better than everyone else.

What, you want more? Chris Carpenter missed a month and gave up six earned runs to the Giants, which is a sin so egregious he should be ineligible for next year's award as well. Adam Wainwright had more wins, but Lincecum's middle name is LeRoy, so those two equally important pieces of information cancel each other out.

Another reason that Lincecum should win is that he had to pitch every inning with the knowledge that if he gave up a run, he had to rely on a ragtag collection of non-hitting misfits to score two runs. If he gave up two runs, he had to rely on the same bunch of offensive null sets to score three runs. After giving up a bloop and a sacrifice bunt, he'd look at the runner at second and think, damn, if I give up another hit, that's one more run that our offense will have to score. I'd like to think that as he looked at the runner on second, Aaron Rowand waved at him. But that's just the poet in me. Point being, Lincecum pitched under more pressure because his offense stunk. Is that a valid reason? No, but it makes me feel better, and the abacus twiddlers agree that Lincecum was the most valuable pitcher in the NL, so I can always hide behind appeals to authority that I'm not sure I comprehend.

Maybe Lincecum winning another Cy Young will cost the Giants an extra two million clams. Maybe. But I've watched William VanLandingham tease us with potential. I've listened to the KNBR lines burn up after good games from Jamie Brewington, Allen Watson, and Ryan Vogelsong. I've watched hundreds of games featuring the close-but-no-cigar promise of Russ Ortiz and Shawn Estes. I've watched Joe Nathan build the bulk of an unlikely Hall of Fame case in a different uniform.

Tim Lincecum is it. He's the one we've been waiting for. He might have two Cy Youngs in each of his first two full seasons. He's it. I don't care if winning seven straight Cy Youngs costs the franchise eleventy billion dollars. I watched Noah Lowry disintegrate into a fine powder. My double-album of odes to Jerome Williams, Jesse Foppert, and Kurt Ainsworth seems kind of silly now. Merkin Valdez is still a freaking question mark, 27 years after the Giants acquired him. But we have Lincecum. That makes up for a whole hell of a lot.

So I support Tim Lincecum's candidacy for Cy Young. He makes America better. You like America, don't you? Also, every time a Giants fan roots against Lincecum in the hopes of a lower arbitration award, Tommy Lasorda's bosom tingles with mirth and delight. You have a choice. But you don't have a choice.

Building A Cubs Champion: 2010 Edition

Al — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:15:22 -0000

by Charles Rex Arbogast - AP

Like it or not, one of the keys to the Cubs' success in 2010 is a resurgence by Alfonso Soriano. Here, he launches his game-winning grand slam vs. the Astros last July 27.

View full size photo »

Last year about this time, I made this post discussing what I thought should be the makeup of the 2009 Cubs.

Brave, isn't it, of me to post that link when I'd just as soon forget about it. I was shouted down and laughed at (people are still giving me grief for the Kevin Millar thing, and they were absolutely correct), and had the Cubs put that 25-man roster on the field last April, they'd undoubtedly have had a much worse season than they did in real life (case in point: Alex Hinshaw, who I thought was an up-and-coming LOOGY, threw only six major league innings in 2009, posting a 12.00 ERA).

So let me go about this project this year in a different sort of way. A year ago (actually, October 20, 2008 was the date I wrote the post about my proposed 2009 roster) we were all still stunned and angry that the 97-win team that had dominated the National League all season went three-and-out in the playoffs. This was before Lou's "we've gotta get more lefthanded" mantra led us to the Milton Bradley disaster, before popular favorites Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa were let go, and a lot of us were wondering, "How can we make a team that good into one that will win 11 games in October?"

Jim Hendry and Co. were asking themselves the same question, obviously, but came up with the wrong answer. Without rehashing what we've rehashed all summer long, clearly, it didn't work -- and not just because of Hendry's moves, but because players like Alfonso Soriano, Geovany Soto and Mike Fontenot seriously underperformed their 2008 numbers by considerable margins and for various reasons, and because Aramis Ramirez, who is the Cubs' best hitter, missed 50 games with a dislocated shoulder and wasn't at full strength the rest of the season, eventually playing in only 82 games.

I believe in what new owner Tom Ricketts said at his introductory press conference: that the Cubs already have the talent that can win the World Series, and only need a few tweaks to bring the club back to pennant-contending level. I'm also going to assume that what we've heard about player payroll is correct: that it will be increased, if only "slightly", from 2009, and thus will wind up at (approximately) $145 million. That will rank third in baseball, behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

Thus, instead of trying to build a roster simply by picking pieces from here and there, let's use that $145 million to put together a winning team.

Let's begin with players we know will be with the team next year, and their payroll figures (all numbers from the excellent site Cot's Baseball Contracts). These players are under contract for 2010 and will definitely be on the team, followed by their contract amounts:

Alfonso Soriano, $19,000,000
Carlos Zambrano, $18,875,000
Aramis Ramirez, $16,500,000
Kosuke Fukudome, $14,000,000
Ryan Dempster, $13,500,000
Derrek Lee, $13,000,000
Ted Lilly, $13,000,000

That's $107,875,000 for seven players. The Cubs also owe Jeff Samardzija $1,000,000 on the major league portion of his deal (whether or not he throws a major league inning) and $500,000 to the long-ago-released Luis Vizcaino, who pitched 3.2 innings in a Cub uniform. We're now at $109,375,000, leaving "only" $35,625,000 for 18 more players to fill out the Opening Day 25-man roster. That means there are going to be a fair number of minimum-wage players in 2010, because among the players remaining, a number of them are arbitration-eligible, meaning they will be in line for raises.

The first order of business is to remove Milton Bradley from the premises. We have had many long debates about whether and for whom he should be traded, but I believe this is top priority for Jim Hendry and will happen sooner rather than later. Disagree if you wish, but I think the best of many not-so-great scenarios is to send him -- and Aaron Miles -- to the Giants for Aaron Rowand. Between Bradley and Miles, they are owed a total of $23.7 million; Rowand is owed $36 million. Since in doing a deal like this, you would be relieving the Giants, essentially, of $12 million (approximately) by taking the third year of Rowand's contract, Hendry should ask the Giants to split the difference and pay half of Rowand's 2012 contract, which would split the total dollars (approximately $60 million) between the two teams, about $30 million each.

This would also accomplish equalizing the 2010 payroll -- or come close -- to what Bradley and Miles would have been owed ($11.7 million) and what Rowand is owed ($12 million). I think the Giants would be willing to do this, because you are taking $6 million off their 2012 payroll, while leaving their 2010 and 2011 payrolls where they are now, since Bradley is owed $12 million in 2011.

I concede that Rowand has had two pretty poor offensive seasons in San Francisco (at least in part due to injuries). But in 2007, he had a fine hitting year in Philadelphia, and I believe that he has at least a chance to return to that level in Chicago. If you were looking at the possible acquisition of Rowand in a vacuum, you wouldn't do it -- but the necessity of removing Bradley from the team makes this probably about the best way to accomplish that. At best, this could turn into a Hundley-for-Grudzielanek-and-Karros sort of deal.

So, now the Cubs have a center fielder (with Fukudome moving back to his original position, right field, improving the outfield defense at two spots), but we are now at eight players and have only $23,625,000 left. They're fortunate that Geovany Soto is not yet arbitration-eligible, so let's say the Cubs bump him up to $825,000 from the $575,000 he made in 2009. That's a pretty good raise, given the bad year he had. Now we're at $22,800,000. Backup catcher Koyie Hill made $475,000 in 2009 and had a good year for a backup. Let's move him up to $600,000, leaving $22,200,000.

I'm going to leave the double-play combination alone for 2010. It's likely that by 2011, Starlin Castro will be the Cubs' starting shortstop -- but for now, because Lou and Jim like them, Jeff Baker and Ryan Theriot will return. Baker made $415,000 in 2009 and had a good run after he was acquired from Colorado -- one of Hendry's best moves last year. Let's pay him $500,000, and Theriot $700,000, both up from 2009. That's 12 players, and $21,000,000 remaining for the other 13 -- we're getting to the point where we can actually think about signing a free agent or two or making a deal.

Among our 12 signed players so far are nine hitters -- so, given the current fad of having 12 pitchers on your staff, we have room for four more offensive players. I like Andres Blanco and Sam Fuld -- both performed well in backup roles in 2009. Neither hits much, but both play outstanding defense and neither is going to be expected to start more than a handful of games. Fuld made $401,500 and Blanco $400,000 (the minimum) in 2009, and let's give them both raises to $425,000. We are at 14 players and have $20,050,000 left. We'll need one more outfielder and also a guy who could fill the role that was filled in 2007 and 2008 by Daryle Ward, and in 2009 by Micah Hoffpauir.

Sad to say, I'm non-tendering Micah. He's 30 in March and didn't really do well most of last year -- he's a one-dimensional player, since he's really not a very good outfielder, and didn't do well in the dimension (hitting) he was supposedly good at. Since we're no longer locked in to the "lefthanded" mantra of a year ago, the Cubs can put the minimum-wage Jake Fox -- bumped up to $500,000 for his good performance of a year ago -- in this slot, and re-sign Rowand's close friend Reed Johnson for $3 million to fill in when his buddy hits the brick wall at Wrigley too many times.

So, we now have $16,550,000 left for nine pitchers -- which means we're going to have to fill most of the bullpen with minimum-wage guys. That's actually fine with me -- look at the disaster that was Aaron Heilman last year (in my opinion, Heilman should be non-tendered) -- and the Cubs have a couple of real good prospects, in my opinion, to fill middle-relief roles in Justin Berg and Esmailin Caridad. They get the minimum $400,000 each, leaving $15,750,000 for seven more pitchers. It was reported earlier this week that the Cubs are negotiating a two-year deal with John Grabow; reported figures are "between $6.5 and $7.5 million" for the two years. Let's assume for this post that it's in between, and Grabow gets $3.5 million for 2010. We've got $12,250,000 left and six spots to fill on the pitching staff. Carlos Marmol is going to close; he made $575,000 in 2009, so let's bump him to $800,000. Angel Guzman will be his primary right-handed setup guy (Grabow's the lefty setup guy, or should be, if Lou would ever use him right). Guzman made $421,500 in 2009; he could be renewed at $500,000.

Our payroll drawer is nearly empty (you can almost count the remaining Benjamins, right?); we have $10,950,000 remaining and still need to fill three spots, one in the pen, and two in the starting rotation, and here's where it gets a bit dicey (and this is why I left this part for last). First, you can fill one of the starting spots with Randy Wells, who made the minimum last year and certainly deserves a raise; let's put him at $750,000 (or maybe even a bit less; he's renewable, meaning you don't have to give him that much of a raise until he's arb-eligible next year), leaving $10,200,000. The Cubs have five free agents: Rich Harden, John Grabow, Kevin Gregg, Chad Fox and Reed Johnson. I already re-signed Johnson and Grabow above; Gregg and Fox, thanks for your service, see you in another uniform next year (and please, Jim, not another minor-league invite for Chad Fox. He's done).

But what to do with Harden? If you offer him arbitration, he'll almost certainly accept. To paraphrase Longfellow's nursery rhyme, "When he's good, he's very, very good; when he's bad, he's horrid". If Harden accepts arbitration, he's likely to get pretty close to all the remaining dollars in the drawer -- so reluctantly, we say goodbye to Rich, without the arb offer, unless you can somehow agree ahead of time to get him to sign for $8 million or so. That's not unreasonable given his $7 million salary in 2009 and his mediocre performance.

For the sake of argument, then, let's say we have this $10,950,000 available for our two remaining spots. One of those spots is going to go to Sean Marshall, who, I believe, deserves another shot at the starting rotation after doing a good job as a swingman in 2009. Lou misused him as a LOOGY -- Marshall can clearly do better than getting one LH batter out -- and I'd like to see Sean, now 27 and with four major league seasons under his belt, get a shot at starting. Sean made $450,000 in 2009, and could be paid $600,000 in 2010. In this scenario Samardzija makes the team, likely because the Cubs are paying him the $1 million whether he makes it or not. Otherwise there are other possibilities, including Arizona Fall Leaguers John Gaub and Andrew Cashner, or maybe someone else who will have a good spring (and please, let's not have another David Patton scenario), for this final spot.

That leaves $10,350,000 (or just under $10 million if you use Gaub or Cashner, who would make the minimum). You could consider signing someone like Jon Garland, who just got his option declined by the Dodgers and is a free agent. Garland made $7.25 million in 2009 and had a "typical" Garland year, which is as an inning-eater; you could probably get him for about $8 million for 2010. Garland has made at least 32 starts for eight straight years, and has pitched no fewer than 191.2 innings in any of those eight. Doing that would take the pressure off the staff, especially if Ted Lilly isn't ready for Opening Day, and would let Marshall play the "swingman" role again. Or you could give that last rotation spot to Tom Gorzelanny, who made $433,000 in 2009, and save the money for a midseason acquisition.

Note that I haven't gone all DeRomantic here and proposed bringing back Mark DeRosa, although I think he'd still be a solid addition, even at age 35, for the right price, and a note in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article indicates the Cubs may indeed make DeRo an offer. I also haven't retained Mike Fontenot, who could probably be traded -- I mentioned above non-tendering Heilman, but it may be possible that both Fontenot and Heilman could be dealt, even for low-level prospects. In fact, my 2010 team as proposed above has only two players (Rowand and Garland) who were not with the Cubs at some point in 2009 -- unless they decided not to go with Jake Fox in the bench role and instead signed a free agent (or one who soon will be) such as Ross Gload or Chad Tracy, whose option was declined by the Diamondbacks yesterday. Still, despite all the travails, injuries and bad performances in 2009, the Cubs won 83 games. With performances returning to career norms, better health and a little luck, just a few tweaks could have us returning to the postseason in 2010.

Milton Bradley: Destination Toronto?

Al — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:26:48 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Browse more photos »

The Toronto Sun reports this morning on a potential Milton Bradley for Vernon Wells swap:

The Chicago Cubs would like to -- have to -- deal disgruntled outfielder Milton Bradley. And one player they are eyeing as a target destination is the Blue Jays, with centre fielder Vernon Wells going to the Cubs in return.

"It's early on, but we think this one has some legs," said one Cubs official. "But they aren't the only team we are talking with."

Yes, "centre" is correct. Remember, the quote's from a Canadian paper. Vernon Wells signed an enormous contract with the Blue Jays before the 2008 season and there are six years left on the deal. How would the Cubs deal with that huge amount of money, given Tom Ricketts' statement yesterday that payroll would go up "slightly" next year, as well as Alfonso Soriano's remaining deal?

The Cubs' idea is to split the difference on monies owed -- Wells' $107 million and Bradley's $21 million for a difference of $86 million. Each team absorbs $43 million.

I was told there would be no math here, but if I have calculated this right -- and correct me, please, if I haven't -- that puts the Cubs on the hook for (approximately) $10.67 million for each of the six remaining years of Wells' deal. According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, Wells has a full no-trade clause that would have to be waived, and he can opt out of the deal after 2011.

Since the departure of Milton Bradley was only going to be made possible by taking on someone else's bad contract, this might be a possible "best of the worst". Wells is about six months younger than Bradley and had a big offensive season as recently as 2006. He can play center field, which would allow the Cubs to move Kosuke Fukudome back to right field, a better position for him. I'm not completely sold on this deal, but remember, the Cubs aren't exactly in the best bargaining position, either. The article concludes:

The Cubs have to deal Bradley. Other possible landing spots: The San Francisco Giants for lefty Barry Zito, who has four years remaining at $83 million; the Indians for Travis Hafner, three years for $40.25 million, Giants' Aaron Rowand, three years at $36 million, the Dodgers for Juan Pierre, two years at $18.5 million, and Tampa Bay's Pat Burrell, one year at $7 million.

Well. There's no way the Cubs ever, ever, EVER take Juan Pierre back. The Burrell possibility has been rumored before; Burrell's a bad outfielder, but at least the Cubs would only be stuck with his deal for one year; we've discussed the Rowand possibility also, I doubt the Giants are dealing Zito now since he had such a good second half, and there would be absolutely no point in acquiring Hafner, who hasn't played a game in the field since 2007 and can only play first base -- the Cubs already have one of those.

We, as ever, await developments.

Bill James Handbook 2010 Projections

Al — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:11:01 -0000

More photos » by Duane Burleson - AP

Will Magglio Ordonez be a Cub in 2010?

Browse more photos »

With a day off before game six of the ALCS -- and this series has the chance to go down in history as one of the better league championship series, having already produced at least three "instant classics", let's spend today looking toward next year.

As most of you probably already know, ACTA Sports publishes, each year, the Bill James Handbook, which in addition to having complete stats for all players active in 2009, publishes projections for the following season based on a projection system that they are continually tweaking to attempt to make it as accurate as possible.

The good folks at ACTA sent me an advance copy of the projection pages from the handbook, in which Bill James first runs down the projections they did for 2009; some of them were missed badly (mostly due to injury -- Eric Chavez and Troy Glaus, for example), others (Mark Teixeira, Orlando Hudson and Evan Longoria are the examples they give) were pretty darn close. They projected Mike Fontenot to have 9 HR and 43 RBI -- exactly what he did have, except they thought he'd hit .288, instead of the .236 he actually hit. For Geovany Soto, they missed badly -- the James system had him at .289, with a .499 SLG, 35 doubles, 23 HR and 89 RBI. I think you can imagine how much better the Cubs' season would have been if they had been right about Geo.

Continue after the jump to find some of their projections for 2010. I'm not only going to post a few of the projections for Cubs players that they sent me, but also some projections for some of the possible acquisitions we have discussed here at BCB, mainly some of the hitters that have been talked about in potential Milton Bradley deals. (Note: doing this doesn't mean I'm endorsing any particular acquisition, simply posting some numbers for players we've speculated about.)

Let's start with a few players we know are going to be Cubs in 2010:

Derrek Lee: .291/.378/.516, 40 doubles, 30 HR, 98 RBI, 94 runs
Aramis Ramirez: .292/.364/.514, 32 doubles, 26 HR, 97 RBI, 76 runs
Alfonso Soriano: .263/.320/.487, 35 doubles, 30 HR, 77 RBI, 85 runs
Kosuke Fukudome: .265/.365/.427, 39 doubles, 13 HR, 61 RBI, 76 runs
Geovany Soto: .273/.361/.469, 31 doubles, 20 HR, 79 RBI, 58 runs

Well. If those come true, the Cubs will score a ton of runs in 2010; that's 389 runs from just five players. Now, some of the starting rotation -- acknowledging, as James points out, that pitcher projections are done very differently than hitter projections due to the nature of pitching statistics:

Carlos Zambrano: 29 starts, 180 IP, 80 BB, 151 K, 12-8, 3.60
Ryan Dempster: 30 starts, 195 IP, 81 BB, 167 K, 12-10, 3.83
Ted Lilly: 25 starts, 170 IP, 56 BB, 144 K, 11-8, 3.76
Randy Wells: 30 starts, 188 IP, 60 BB, 147 K, 10-10, 4.16 
Carlos Marmol: 74 games, 73 IP, 45 BB, 84 K, 5-3, 3.45, 34 saves

And, apparently, give up a ton of runs and finish barely over .500. For some reason, they also project Wells to have 14 HBP and 19 other major league pitchers to have 15 or more -- that seems way off, considering that only one pitcher (Dave Bush) had 15 in 2009 and that Wells himself had only 6 HBP in the season just ended.

Now, here are some projections for some -- not all -- of the players we have discussed here as possible 2010 new Cubs, enough to get some discussion going:

Magglio Ordonez: .311/.376/.476, 32 doubles, 17 HR, 84 RBI, 70 runs
Curtis Granderson: .275/.353/.491, 30 doubles, 11 triples, 27 HR, 76 RBI, 106 runs, 17 SB
Michael Young: .299/.352/.443, 37 doubles, 16 HR, 80 RBI, 88 runs
Vernon Wells: .271/.327/.443, 33 doubles, 19 HR, 77 RBI, 77 runs
Aaron Rowand: .267/.327/.423, 37 doubles, 17 HR, 72 RBI, 74 runs
Carlos Beltran: .282/.375/.490, 33 doubles, 24 HR, 91 RBI, 92 runs
Mark DeRosa: .260/.335/.418, 27 doubles, 17 HR, 71 RBI, 76 runs

And, because you'll ask:

Milton Bradley: .276/.384/.450, 25 doubles, 18 HR, 64 RBI, 74 runs

James' system projects Bradley to play 133 games and have 467 AB; both of those would be the second-highest totals of his career. Note also that (presumably) the projections for players who the Cubs might acquire are based on their current home parks; playing with Wrigley Field as their home park would likely result in different projections.

There are complete projections in the book, which is available November 1 and which you can pre-order at the link at the top of this post -- we can discuss whatever players you want in this post, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time typing out projections for others, so don't ask. Full disclosure: ACTA Sports is sending me a copy of the book.

2009-10 Do-It-Yourself Offseason Trade/Free Agent Post

Al — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:01:23 -0000

More photos » by Mark Avery - AP

Some guy named Brian Roberts. Ever heard of him? Me, either.

Browse more photos »

This morning, wrote that the Cubs are interested in acquiring . Cubs GM Jim Hendry . Meanwhile, Hendry said that Milton Bradley would be traded to the . Hendry also said that Rich Harden , and that Carlos Zambrano . Former Cub Mark DeRosa while Bradley was offered to the . The Cubs tried to get the to take Aaron Miles' contract, but they refused because . In the upcoming Rule 5 draft, the Cubs are going to select . The Cubs' plans for Sam Fuld in 2010 include Brian Roberts was located and had this comment on his possible trade to the Cubs: Finally, manager Lou Piniella's comments about the rumors included:

Insane Trade Ideas Involving Jose Guillen

royalsreview — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:37:52 -0000

More photos » by Ted S. Warren - AP

The Dayton Moore Era has reduced us to this. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Browse more photos »

Jose Guillen will earn $12 million dollars next year. He's not a good baseball player: he can't hit anymore and he is probably one of the two or three worst outfielders in the American League. He's in the way. He makes life more complicated for the Royals, and frankly, the Royals don't need things to be any more difficult than they already are.

The Royals need to trade Jose Guillen. Everybody realizes this. The only problem is that there is no real trade market for a terrible and expensive ballplayer with injury history who also happens to have a horrible reputation in the industry (Dayton Moore everyone!).

I don't think we can overstate just how unappealing he is right now, which is why the Royals should simply release him and move on. I really have no sense of how likely this is. Yes, just two years ago Moore voluntarily brought Guillen in, and yes, his bad play is not a recent development. That being said, Moore has shown an ability to cut bait on a failed experiment (Tony Pena Jr., Gload) albeit in a tardy fashion before. It would not stun me if this happened, although it would not stun me if Guillen is the Opening Day starter in right-field either.

There is one way the Royals might be able to trade Guillen, and that is to use him to solve someone else's problem. Many have suggested a seemingly logical Guillen-Bradley trade with the Cubs in just this vein. Bradley's situation in Chicago is certainly toxic, however, he remains an actually good player and, despite a widespread assumption that his contract is a disaster, he's set to earn just $9 million in 2010 and $12 million in 2011. I think the Cubs will hear better offers than a Guillen swap.

The key for the Royals might be finding someone who should be as desperate as they are. I think they can do this by inquiring about overpaid players signed to long-term deals. Can the Royals turn Jose Guillen into someone else's salary dump? The key is to think less about the money and more about the player, if the Royals can turn Jose Guillen into a good player, they should at least consider the move. Granted, I think many of these proposed trades are insane. I'm probably shaming all of us by even giving them the light of day. However, I also think that there's a small bit of "hey, this isn't half bad, maybe there's something to this."

Let's go:

Insane Idea #1- Guillen for Vernon Wells. Wells has a no-trade clause and would probably hate the idea of coming to Kansas City. Nevertheless, the situation in Toronto has soured and he may not want to be a Blue Jay as the team (presumably) rebuilds. In exchange for the last year of Guillen's contract, the Royals would have to take on Wells' deal, which is downright onerous: $12.5 M in 2010, $23 M in 2011, $21 M in 2012, $21 M in 2013, $21 M in 2014. That's $98.5 million, though in effect only $86.5 million after the swap. The catch is that Wells might be a productive player for most of this deal. He had a anti-career year in 2009 and he needs to leave CF. If he does the latter, he'll regain alot of his overall value, which could coincide with a few bounceback years at the plate. Yea, from a pure WAR perspective he will not earn his salary, but if he's a $9 million dollar player earning $23 million, that's not the end of the world. Yea, 2012-2014 are gonna be pretty painful, but if the Royals are gonna try to compete in 2010, an outfield of DeJesus-Someone-Wells has the potential to be really good defensively, with two nice bats. I think the Jays would make this deal right now, so maybe the Royals get greedy and ask for some money back in the swap or even a favorable secondary exchange of prospects. (Wells also has an opt-out option after 2011, which seems unspeakably unlikely to occur, but I thought it was worth mentioning.)
Insane Idea #2- Guillen for Barry Zito. A similar trade as above. Zito has $94 million left on a contract that runs through 2014, if an option for the final year vests. I'd be afraid of Zito returning to the American League, but his mini-comeback season in 2009 makes this trade one you'd at least pause to consider. If you assume the 2013 club option (which is tied to innings) doesn't vest and factor in the Guillen savings, then the Zito contract is equivalent to a four year, $64 million dollar deal. The Royals would head into Spring Training with a rotation of Greinke, Meche, Tejeda/Bannister/Davies/Hochevar #1, Tejeda/Bannister/Davies/Hochevar#2, and Zito. With Tejeda/Bannister/Davies/Hochevar#3 potentially a high-leverage bullpen arm and insurance policy. Zito was overrated as an A and is probably underrated now. Yea, his contract sucks, but it isn't your money.Tell me you're not doing a double take on this one? OK, maybe you aren't.
Insane Idea #3- Guillen for Carlos Silva. Silva is owed $23 million total for 2010-11, which becomes $25 million with a presumed buyout after 2011. Silva's contract is terrible, but he's also much worse than Zito or Wells. Less money, lesser player. However, when you factor in the savings of Guillen's salary, he's only really the next Kyle Farnsworth. I don't want Moore trading with Dr. Z anymore, but this isn't a completely unmerited trade for either side. Maybe Silva even gives you a 0.7 WAR season or something, it could happen.
Insane Idea #4- Guillen for Aaron Rowand. Rowand has three years and $36 million remaining on a fat contract signed two years ago. I'm not sure the Giants view him as a problem, but with his annual salary set to increase, they could be interested in moving him to help their chances of keeping Tiny Tim around. Rowand, like Wells, may eventually need to leave centerfield, but he probably wouldn't be terrible there in 2010. A DDJ-Someone-Rowand outfield would be very strong defensively, which could help make up for Rowand's subpar bat. If you factor in the Guillen savings, this swap would leave the Royals paying Rowand $8 million a year.
Insane Idea #5- Guillen for Gary Matthews Jr. Did you know that Gary Matthews Jr.'s regrettable contract now only has two years remaining? Matthews is owed $23 million total for 2010-11, which is barely anything compared to some of the guys we've seen. The GMJ contract has to go down as one of the worst of the decade, as he's given the Angels nothing from the very beginning. His offensive and defensive numbers are bad, but with regular playing time, I think he can be better. Not good, but vaguely ok. Of course, the Angels seem unlilkely to make this move, given management's long-standing problems with Guillen. When you're dreaming about a Gary Matthews Jr. trade and regretting these difficulties, you realize just what Dayton Moore has done to you.
Insane Idea #6- Guillen for Alfie Soriano. Soriano, incredibly, still has $90 million left on his massive contract, thanks to an $18 million dollar annual salary that runs through 2014. I think I'd rather have Vernon Wells.
Insane Idea #7- Guillen for Kosuke Fukudome. The time to make this deal was last winter, when Guillen may have still had some appeal and Fukudome's contract looked worse. Still, the Cubs would get out of the $26.5 million dollar obligation they have to Fukudome, in exchange for eating Guillen's $12 million. Fukudome's defense rated well in 2008, and was bad in 2009, so his overall value both seasons has been about the same. I wouldn't hesitate to make this deal, which also means the Cubs wouldn't do it. Then again, the Cubs have some massive contracts and (partially) selling off Fukudome could be appealing.
Insane Idea #8- Guillen for Dice K. My original idea was to look at swapping out JD Drew's contract, but its really not that bad, and I think the Boston FO values Drew's game, even if the general public doesn't. Dice-K is a different story, and the Red Sox owe him $28 million over the next three seasons. Guillen would never see the light of day in a Red Sox uniform, but the Red Sox would save $16 million in the process. The question is, would you want Dice-K for three years/$16 million?

I think you get the idea I'm proposing here: the Royals use their own Guillen salary dump to take on a bigger salary problem of somebody else's making. The key is finding a player who currently has a contract that is now seen is a milestone in his current situation, but is, in reality, not that bad of a deal

I'd make the Guillen for Silva, Guillen for Fukudome, Guillen for GMJ, Guillen for Rowand moves right now. The Guillen for Zito and Guillen for Wells deals, probably the craziest (outside of the Soriano one, which I'm keeping in just to let you know I'm not out of my mind), would be tough to make but have some appeal. The money's pretty close, but I think I'd rather take on Zito than Wells. Dice-K is essentially a reprise of the Silva situation, though he still holds some promise.

There are sound arguments why doing a trade like this is a bad idea. Why compound a problem? Why take on more bad salary? The simplest thing to do would just be to release Guillen. Given the long-term contracts already given to Meche, Soria, & Greinke, the Royals don't really have any building blocks at the moment that need to be locked up with any urgency, save perhaps Billy Butler. Our attitude towards payroll should always be the same: we should only care insomuch as any contract has an ability to affect other moves or grant unjustified playing time. To different extents, all these bad contracts might do so, though I'm tempted to say something about how keeping Dayton Moore off the free agent market might not be a bad thing.

So what do you think?