Filed:November 18th, 2009
Mark DeRosa (Cubbie Nation/file)
You ever found yourself reading a well-written piece, and feeling like it all sounds logical and sensible, then think about it a little more, and wonder if the writer if off his meds? I had a moment like this when I read a recent piece by Foxsports writer Dayn Perry, who proposes in the column a number of moves that teams need to make this off-season.
It's reads like something of a wild farce through a fantasy league, although I do recommend that you read it. You'll find ideas like 1) The cash-strapped Tigers ignoring that they can't sell tickets (or dump salaries), and spend even more to pick up a free agent closer. 2) That Mike Cameron should ignore his ego, talent, and reputation, and go man a corner spot for the Cardinals, which would then give them one of the best outfield defenses in the league. His words, not mine. 3) That the Yankees should continue to march Johhny Damon out to left field for the next three years -- and at likely a premium price for the trouble. And oh, my favorite; that the Cubs should resign Mark DeRosa to man second base next season.
Ouch. Now even Perry is drinking the Kool-Aid?
You guys know me, I generally like the idea of getting the band back together, and when DeRosa was good, he was very good. But the team has moved on; they've changed, and general manager Jim Hendry needs to recognize that, and not have this turn into another off-season of bad moves and poor lineup construction.
The long and short of it is that the Cubs don't need right-handed power. You've got four RH-hitters capable of hitting 25-plus homers a season. You don't need a super-utility man either. Jeff Baker has spent time at every position on the field sans shortstop, and even being arbitration eligible, should likely slot into the 2010 roster at at least half the cost of resigning DeRosa.
What they do need is a left-handed hitter, capable of getting on base, and some help with run prevention, neither of which can be expected from a 35-year old DeRosa playing second base. The Cubs still missed plenty of bats in 2009, but it's very evident that the biggest advantage that the Cubs could give themselves next season besides better health is improving their up-the-middle defense. No more Fukudome in center, a real defensive second baseman, and if they were really smart, quietly showing Ryan Theriot the door, but I guess that last one is a conversation for another time.
Quite simply, with Rich Harden leaving, and a lack of power arms in the pen, look for more balls in play in 2010, and the need to cover more ground to not have to extend starters, and get into what so far is looking like a very thin middle relief situation.
I'm going to make a modest proposal. Rather than pandering, and playing the PR game as Perry suggests, how about improving the team on the field? If shuttling Milton Bradley doesn't return a left-handed hitting infielder in return, may I suggest Felipe Lopez or Orlando Hudson, both of whom should be expected to see deals in the same neighborhood as DeRosa, if not cheaper? Not the mention that both are younger, able to swipe a base, and perfectly suitable for the top-of-the-lineup role that Hendry and manager Lou Piniella have suggested an interest in.
Whatever the case, you simply can't go home again. Trading Mark DeRosa was never the problem. Shipping him off so as to sign the likes of Milton Bradley was. It's done. It didn't pan out. Move on.
Filed:November 9th, 2009
Mike Cameron (Cubbie Nation/file)
No, it hasn't come to fruition yet, but I suspect that it's a phrase that we should all start practicing.
The Milwaukee Brewers acquired center fielder Carlos Gomez in a swap with the Twins for J.J. Hardy, relegating Mike Cameron, at least temporarily, to the ranks of the unemployed.
Can't blame General Manager Doug Melvin. As a cash-constrained team, especially one desperate for pitching, they simply couldn't afford the luxury of Mike Cameron. Between his salary and Hardy's, they look to free up a very good chunk of change, enabling them to dip into the free agent market for a pitcher or two. Personally, I think they need to wake up and deal Prince Fielder to get it, but hey, every man is free to make his own mistakes.
But back to Cameron, who has frustrated me for years with his long swing, and strikeout tendencies. Pair him and Alfonso Soriano together in a lineup, and I'm certain they'll eclipse 300 strikeouts next season without trying. That's the bad news.
Fortunately, the good news is two fold. Cameron is something of a hallmark on consistency, being not only still a superior defender in center, but someone you slot in your lineup, and just ring up the stats. You'll get 20-25 homers, and .800 OPS, and double-digit steals. Little more, little less.
There's been very little deterioration in his game over the last season, in my opinion. He still appears in very good health, better spirits, and with the same professional work habits. You might do well to spell him just a little more with a left-handed hitter, so as to cut back his starts just a touch. But a two-year (with or without option) deal for a team shopping for a bat would seem like smart business, especially given that he should slot a bit below Bobby Abreu's most recent deal.
But here's the rub; Lou Piniella and Mike Cameron are probably each other's biggest fans. Their welcomes are warm, the conversations always long, and praise always high, going back to their Mariner days. Cameron is everything that Piniella likes in not only a player, but a person. Consider me shocked if Piniella doesn't insist that the Cubs at least kick the tires.
Bottom line, he's a Lou guy; someone Piniella has always respected, and gives the Cubs a solid, short-term, reasonably-priced solution for 2010 -- minus the headaches.
We'll all have to wait and see how the Milton Bradley trade scenarios play out, but with Cameron now available, I'd look for rumors of hot and heavy conversations between them to start as soon as this week.
Filed:November 3rd, 2009
Cubs reliever John Grabow (Cubbie Nation/file)
Bruce Levine of ESPN 1000 is reporting that the Cubs and reliever John Grabow are in the mist of heavy talks for a multi-year deal. Levine reports that the offer is reportedly to be a $6.5 to $7.5 million pact, with a third year being a possibility.
Some people never learn. I expected the Cubs to make a meaningful offer to retain John Grabow, especially given that he was effective down the stretch for the Cubs. If at the end of the day, the Cubs can lock him up at under $6.5 million -- preferably with the second year as an option -- then this is a win-win in my book.
But I'm seeing the continuation of disturbing trends here that I hoped would cease with the ownership transition. Multi-year deals for relievers are reserved for lights-out firemen; closers, and guys with a established history of success. Not for lefties with average stats, pitching in low-stress innings for a perennial loser in Pittsburgh.
The formula is to have this guys on one-year deals, where they play for their pay, allowing your club the most financial flexibility possible, and giving them to ability to concentrate on allocating money of players who provide the best return on investment. And those are usually not guys pitching in 60 innings of middle relief a season.
The Cubs have seen this as recently as a couple of years ago, when lengthy deals made to Scott Eyre and Bob Howry had both hanging around at least a year too long, for various reasons.
Here's the real problem though. At the end of the day, the Cubs are bidding against themselves. Grabow, a likely Type A free agent, is probably the softest of the lefties hitting the market this off-season. With Joe Beimel (better stats, and playoff experience), Mike Gonzalez (potential closer fallback), Billy Wagner (same) and Ron Mahay on the market as well, there are any number of lefties here that either won't cost a team a first round pick, or can better justify that compensation in their signing.
The Cubs need only offer John Grabow arbitration, and his free agent status deteriorates to the point where he's almost forced to return to the Cubs, likely on a one year, $4 million dollar package. Simple, easy, and cost controlled.
And if he leaves, the Cubs collect not one, but two picks in next year's draft. Where's the downside here?
Wanting John Grabow back is fine, and if Jim Hendry can get him with one, plus an option, I think he should do that. But upwards of $4 million per, with a potential third year vested added in is pure nonsense.
Too much money, too many years, and bidding against yourselves. The more that I hear, the less I like.