Bleed Cubbie Blue

Guess The 40-Man Roster Additions

2009-11-20T21:15:48Z

10:59 pm CST tonight is the deadline for teams to fill out their 40-man rosters with players they want to protect from the Rule 5 draft next month.

With the trade of Aaron Heilman yesterday, the Cubs' 40-man roster stands at 33 players -- so they've got plenty of room to add players they want to protect. This article from the Atlanta Braves website gives some details on how this process works and also about some other upcoming deadlines.

The number of players added by tonight may also give us a clue as to upcoming trades or free-agent signings -- if the Cubs don't fill out the roster to the full 40-man limit, it may presage some acquisitions.

Post your guesses as to who the Cubs might add to the 40-man roster (or who -- cough Neal Cotts cough -- might be removed). Once the Cubs post the full list, I'll update this post, either later today or tomorrow.

Why (And How) The Cubs Should Trade For Curtis Granderson

2009-11-20T17:39:01Z

by Duane Burleson - AP

In addition to a good bat, Curtis Granderson would give the Cubs plus defense in CF.

View full size photo »

I'm not sure I really have to convince anyone here of the premise of the headline of this article; numerous people have already posted here about how useful Curtis Granderson would be in the Cubs' outfield, and several traditional media articles in both Chicago and Detroit have discussed this possibility (and those are just three examples of dozens of such articles). Granderson himself is busy this winter pitching a reality TV series:

The Detroit Tigers player has agreed to host a TV and online series titled "Stadium Secrets" where he takes sports fans on an exploration of stadiums.

The concept is similar to Authentic’s "Cities of the Underworld" on History channel.

"Authentic will be providing an exclusive, VIP experience for fans everywhere – a behind-the-scenes journey that will be exciting for all of us. I am eager to begin working on this project and look forward to a successful partnership," Granderson said.

Sounds interesting. I'm hoping Granderson gets to explore Wrigley Field in detail starting next summer. In the meantime, after the jump I'm going to examine Granderson's numbers in detail, explain why he's a perfect fit for Chicago and the Cubs, and look at who the Cubs might have to give the Tigers in exchange.

We have to first start this discussion with a couple of assumptions. First, we assume that Milton Bradley has been, or will be, traded before any Granderson deal, thus opening up center field for the Cubs (with Kosuke Fukudome moving back to right field, a position he plays better; this would solidify Cubs defense in two positions). It is, of course, possible that Bradley could be part of a deal for Granderson, but I am going to operate here under the assumption that he's not, that Bradley will be dealt to some other team (the Rays?) and that any Granderson trade would be a separate transaction.

Second, I think you have to assume that Granderson has to be, at this stage of his career -- he will be 29 on March 16, not old, but getting toward the end of his "best" year capability -- platooned, at least to some extent. His career splits:

vs. RHP: .292/.367/.528, .894 OPS
vs. LHP: .210/.270/.344, .614 OPS

Last year it was even more extreme:

vs. RHP: .275/.358/.539, .897 OPS
vs. LHP: .183/.245/.239, .484 OPS

Against RHP, Granderson hits almost as well as Aramis Ramirez -- All-Star level. Against LHP... well, he's basically Aaron Miles. So you'd probably want to re-sign Reed Johnson to give Granderson a break against LHP. Johnson doesn't hit righthanders, but against LHP his career line is .313/.378/.463, an OPS of .841, nearly as good as Granderson vs. RHP. These two together would produce outstanding offensive numbers from the CF position and good defense. The Tigers started Granderson in 155 games in 2009 because, well, they really didn't have any other choice. The other eight (remember, the Tigers played 163 games in 2009) games were started by Josh Anderson (1), Clete Thomas (2) and Ryan Raburn (5), and of those guys, only Raburn can hit (he hits LHP pretty well -- the Tigers could have gotten more offense out of CF if they had played Raburn there a bit more often vs. LHP).

So a modified platoon of Granderson and Reed Johnson would be, in my opinion, the ticket to success for the Cubs outfield. I say "modified" because Johnson would also have to spell Fukudome in RF from time to time; on those days, Granderson would have to start in CF vs. LHP. Sam Fuld would stick with the team as the fifth outfielder, someone who could take over in the late innings for Alfonso Soriano. The Cubs' outfield would be very good defensively and close to outstanding offensively.

Granderson's contract, though it has three full years to run (and a 2013 option) is not onerous. Like many Jim Hendry contracts in recent years, it's backloaded. In 2010, Granderson is due to make a somewhat-reasonable $5.5 million; that increases to $8.25 million in 2011 and $10 million in 2012, with a $2 million buyout in 2013 (all figures, as always, from the excellent Cot's Baseball Contracts), that would increase to $13 million (with some escalators to that based on performance) if the option is exercised. That would make the total financial commitment $25.25 million (presuming the buyout is done), spread over four years from 2010-2013. That's not unreasonable for a player of Granderson's ability.

Now -- how do you get him? The Tigers seem to be in partial-sell mode; that is, they'd like to shed some of their big-dollar contracts, but not get into full rebuilding mode. Thus, you'd need to get them at least a couple of players who could step in right now and contribute at the major league level. I can't find the link right now, but in a recent Baseball America online chat, a question was asked to BA's Jim Callis about this type of deal:

Q: Would Josh Vitters, Jake Fox, and Jay Jackson be enough for the Cubs to land Curtis Granderson if he really is available? Would you do that deal if you were the Cubs?

Jim Callis: I would think so. The Tigers have to dump salary, so I might try to hold onto Vitters and see if Detroit would take Ryan Flaherty, or hold onto Jackson and offer a lesser pitcher. But the Cubs are in win-now mode, and I think they'd bite.

I'd do this deal. Starlin Castro may be the flavor-of-the-month after his .376/.396/.491 performance in the Arizona Fall League, but I think he has higher upside than Vitters, who also hit well in the AFL (.353/.380/.455), and I would not trade Castro. It's entirely possible that Vitters will become a good major league player -- but you're getting a good major league player in return. Jake Fox is miscast in the National League; though he worked hard at playing 3B, C, LF and RF, his best position is DH. Throw in the fact that he played college ball at the University of Michigan, and he's a natural for Detroit. Jay Jackson has been up and down in the Cubs organization and while he has talent, I'm not quite sure what role the Cubs have in mind for him. He was exclusively a starter in 2009 after starting and relieving in 2008.

Callis thinks this would get a deal done and I'd do it -- but I suspect the Tigers might ask for Andrew Cashner instead of Jackson. That's a high price to pay -- Cashner has a shot at the major league bullpen for the Cubs in 2010 and he could even be viewed as a closer candidate by the Tigers, who are likely to let Fernando Rodney walk. (Rodney had a decent year in his first full season as closer, but will be 33 in March.)

I'd still do Vitters, Cashner and Fox for Granderson. For those of you who say, "No way! Keep those prospects! We can't give up both Vitters and Cashner!", I say that one of the things you can do with your prospects is turn them into productive major league players. The Cubs did this in acquiring Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez; when D-Lee was acquired he was just about the same age Granderson is now.

I might even do Vitters, Fox, Cashner AND Jackson for Granderson. To illustrate why, let me tell you a little story I just read about from Cubs history. Take it for what it's worth, because it came from the new edition of Leo Durocher's (ghostwritten by Ed Linn) autobiography, "Nice Guys Finish Last" (mini-book-review: recommended, for its interesting take on Durocher's era in baseball history). In it, he describes having discussions along with GM John Holland, with the Baltimore Orioles in the winter of 1971 about trading for Frank Robinson. According to the book, the Orioles asked for five young players -- pitchers Earl Stephenson, Jim Colborn, Bill Bonham, Joe Decker and outfielder Brock Davis. Durocher's book says they hedged, asking to make it four-for-one, not wanting to give up both Decker and Bonham.

You know what? They should have offered Baltimore GM Frank Cashen a handshake and done the deal right then and there. The next day, Robinson was traded to the Dodgers -- for four minor leaguers, only one of whom (Doyle Alexander) had a significant major league career.

The day after that, the Cubs traded Stephenson, Colborn and Davis to the Brewers for Jose Cardenal. Stephenson and Davis never had any significant impact in the major leagues. Colborn did have a few decent major league seasons, winning 20 games for the Brewers in 1973. Bill Bonham never became the big winner the Cubs thought he would; eventually he was traded to the Reds for Woodie Fryman and Bill Caudill. Joe Decker was traded to the Twins (with Bill Hands) a year later for Dave LaRoche.

None of those deals would have had the impact that getting Frank Robinson to play right field for the 1972 Cubs would have had. At 35, Robinson was past his best years, but would have been a far better hitter in Wrigley Field than he was in Dodger Stadium that year. (Robinson also got hurt in 1972 and missed almost 60 games; whether that would have happened to him as a Cub is unknown, obviously.)

The 1972 Cubs finished fourth in the league in runs scored and would have been a better offensive team with Frank Robinson than they were with Jose Cardenal; neither Bonham nor Decker had any significant impact on the '72 team.

The point is, that sometimes you have to take team "prospects" -- who may never pan out to what you hope they will -- to win now. Trading Vitters and Jay Jackson -- or even Vitters, Jackson and Cashner -- may provide dividends to the Detroit Tigers two or three years down the road. But acquiring Curtis Granderson, who, in addition to his talent on the field, is also, from all reports, a good clubhouse guy who spends a lot of time giving back to the community (and is a native Chicagoan), would go a long way to helping the 2010 Cubs return to the playoffs and give them a chance to win it all.

And isn't that what we all want?

As we often say here... GETITDON EJIM.

Cubs Trade Aaron Heilman To Diamondbacks

2009-11-19T21:45:23Z

More photos » by Al Behrman - AP

No scenes like this will be seen in 2010. Aaron Heilman is headed to Arizona.

Browse more photos »

With all apologies due to BCB reader brian custer, a close friend of Aaron Heilman, he'll have to head to Phoenix to see his buddy pitch in 2010 -- the Cubs sent Heilman to the Diamondbacks today for two minor leaguers.

Personally, I'm happy about this -- Heilman did pitch a little better in September, which probably increased his trade value. This means it was a good thing that Jim Hendry didn't let him go for just the waiver price in August; at least a couple of minor leaguers will return. This also gives Esmailin Caridad and Justin Berg a better shot at making the 2010 bullpen; I like both those guys.

Details from the press release, after the jump.

The Chicago Cubs today acquired left-handed pitcher Scott Maine and first baseman Ryne White from the Arizona Diamondbacks for right-handed pitcher Aaron Heilman. White is a native of Chicago and is a 2005 graduate of St. Rita of Cascia High School.

Maine, 24, combined to go 4-5 with seven saves and a 2.90 ERA (20 ER/62.0 IP) in 48 relief appearances between Double-A Mobile and Triple-A Reno in 2009, reaching Triple-A in only his third professional season. The southpaw struck out 61 batters and issued 22 walks in 62.0 innings pitched between the stops, an average of nearly one strikeout per inning and 3.2 walks per nine innings. He allowed only two home runs in 62.0 innings pitched. Maine last month also made a pair of appearances for the Scottsdale Scorpions in the Arizona Fall League, allowing three runs in 1.2 innings.

Drafted by the Diamondbacks in the sixth round of the 2007 Draft, Maine is 8-7 with 13 saves and a 3.29 ERA (44 ER/120.1 IP) in 88 relief appearances covering three professional seasons. The six-foot-three, 195-pounder pitched for three seasons at the University of Miami before joining the Diamondbacks organization.

White, 23, batted .266 (111-for-418) with 18 doubles, six home runs, 52 RBI, 65 walks and a .371 on-base percentage in 116 games for Single-A Visalia last season. He was especially strong against right-handed pitching, batting .298 (78-for-262) with a .405 on-base percentage compared to a .212 (33-for-156) mark and a .313 on-base percentage vs. left-handed pitching. He is a career .275 hitter (194-for-705) with 13 home runs, 103 RBI and a .366 on-base percentage in 186 professional games the last two seasons.

After graduating from St. Rita of Cascia, White attended Purdue University and was a 2007 Big Ten Conference All-Star after batting .452 (90-for-199) with a .521 on-base percentage in 53 games for the Boilermakers. The five-foot-11, 205-pounder was selected by the Diamondbacks in the fourth round of the 2008 Draft.

Yes, They Really Did Close The Upper Deck At Wrigley In The 1970's (A Photo Essay)

2009-11-19T14:00:14Z

This remarkable photo, part of a photoset of Chicago pictures I acquired from eBay member "nicepictures" (who graciously gave permission to post it here), clearly shows something which a number of us who lived through that era knew -- that on many weekdays during the 1960's and 1970's, the Cubs often closed the upper deck entirely, since crowds were small enough to all fit downstairs. Lower grandstand seats (what we now know as terrace boxes and terrace reserved) were unreserved, so you could sit wherever you wanted, first come first served, and the Cubs didn't have to assign ushers (they weren't called "security" in those days) to the upper deck.

Click on the photo and examine it carefully; then go after the jump to find out when it was taken. If you want to guess yourself, don't click on the jump to find out the answer before you make your best guess!

Click on image to open a larger version in a new browser window. Depending on the size of your display and browser, it may require some scrolling. If you find it to be too large, click here for a smaller version.

The two identifiable Cubs in this photo are Rick Monday, playing center field and Jose Cardenal, playing left. That narrows it down to 1972-76, although I was given a clue by the photo itself; it was dated 1975.

That narrowed it down to six possible games, because if you look at the third-base coach, he's obviously wearing a Dodger uniform, and in those days, the West division teams visited Wrigley only six times a year. The first Dodger series was a weekend, May 30, May 31 and June 1 -- the crowds for that series were 21,197, 21,344 and 31,325, all too large to have the upper deck closed, plus, the Cubs didn't close the upper deck on weekends (at that time, there were no season tickets in the upper deck; in fact, there were likely fewer than 3,000 season tickets in all).

So it had to be the series of August 18, 19 and 21 (August 20, 1975 was a rainout, rescheduled for the next day). But which game?

Your next clue is the little mini-scoreboard visible on the facade of the upper deck. All it showed was the batter number, balls, strikes and outs. If you are wondering why there were two digits allowed for "strikes", it's because that board was also used for Bears games -- it showed, left to right, the Bears score, the quarter, down, the yard line, and the visitors score. You can also see the football press box underneath that scoreboard; it was rarely used during the baseball season.

The Dodgers' #34 in 1975 was worn by Lee Lacy, an outfielder of middling talent who had a couple of decent years with the Pirates in the early '80s. I checked to see if he had flied to center field in that series. Sure enough, he did so twice in the first game of the series, on Monday, August 18, 1975. But which flyout was it? One was in the fifth inning, the other the eighth. Both were the third out of the inning, as the board shows.

Your last clue is the fact that a Cub reliever is warming up. In the 1970's, virtually no manager would have had a relief pitcher warming up in the fifth inning of a 3-1 game (Steve Stone, who was the Cub starter that day, had given up a pair of homers in the fifth inning to produce that 3-1 deficit). But in the eighth? Sure, a reliever likely would have been getting loose, and in fact, Tom Dettore (whose biggest infamy came the next season, on April 14, 1976, when he gave up a homer to Dave Kingman, then playing for the Mets, which is believed to be the longest HR ever hit at Wrigley) was brought into the game in the ninth inning after Gene Hiser pinch-hit for Stone. It's not clear, but it probably is Dettore warming up in the pen.

The Cubs wound up losing the game 3-1, despite getting the first two runners on base in the bottom of the ninth (sound familiar?). This image, frozen in time, was the last out of the top of the eighth inning at Wrigley Field on Monday, August 18, 1975. Attendance on that cloudy day was 14,383. The 1975 Cubs actually had a pretty decent offense -- they tied for third in the NL with 712 runs. But their pitching staff doomed them to a 75-87 record; they allowed 827 runs, 88 more than anyone else in the National League.

2010 Cubs Spring Training Schedule

2009-11-18T21:25:26Z

More photos » by Chris Carlson - AP

Derrek Lee signs autographs in Mesa last spring.

Browse more photos »

The Cubs announced their spring training schedule today; it includes 15 games at Mesa and 20 on the road -- the road games include the two previously announced games vs. the White Sox in Las Vegas and the two games announced yesterday vs. the Diamondbacks at Chase Field that will end the spring season on April 2 and 3. There are more split-squad games this year, due to the addition of the Reds to the Cactus League, making 15 teams in Arizona. From the press release:

Individual game tickets for the 2010 Chicago Cubs home spring training games at HoHoKam Park will go on sale Tuesday, January 5 at 10 a.m. CST on www.cubs.com or by calling 1-800-905-3315. The ticket box office at HoHoKam Park will open for the sale of individual game tickets beginning on January 12, 2009 at 9 a.m. MST.

Season tickets for 2010 at HoHoKam Park go on sale Monday, January 4 at 9 a.m. MST and group tickets go on sale Tuesday, January 5 at 9 a.m. MST at the HoHoKam box office or by calling 480-964-4467.

Fans may direct ticket and additional spring training questions to info2010@mesahohokams.com.

Complete schedule after the jump. This schedule will be placed permanently on the left sidebar.

All times listed below are Chicago time.

Thu 3/4: vs. Athletics at Mesa, 2:05
Fri 3/5: vs. Diamondbacks at Mesa, 2:05
Sat 3/6: vs. White Sox at Mesa, 2:05
Sun 3/7: vs. Dodgers at Mesa (ss), 2:05
         vs. White Sox at Glendale (ss), 2:05
Mon 3/8: vs. Athletics at Phoenix, 2:05
Tue 3/9: vs. Brewers at Mesa, 2:05
Wed 3/10: vs. Giants at Mesa, 2:05
Thu 3/11: vs. Padres at Peoria, 2:05
Fri 3/12: vs. Brewers at Maryvale (ss), 2:05
          vs. White Sox at Las Vegas (ss), TBA
Sat 3/13: vs. Reds at Mesa (ss), 2:05
          vs. White Sox at Las Vegas (ss), TBA
Sun 3/14: vs. Angels at Tempe, 3:05 (DST begins)
Mon 3/15: vs. Rockies at Tucson, 3:10
Tue 3/16: vs. Rangers at Mesa, 3:05
Wed 3/17: OFF DAY
Thu 3/18: vs. Dodgers at Glendale, 3:05
Fri 3/19: vs. White Sox at Glendale, 3:05
Sat 3/20: vs. Athletics at Phoenix (ss), 3:05
          vs. Royals at Mesa (ss), 3:05
Sun 3/21: vs. Reds at Goodyear, 3:05
Mon 3/22: vs. Indians at Mesa, 3:05
Tue 3/23: vs. Royals at Surprise, 3:05
Wed 3/24: vs. Rangers at Surprise, 3:05
Thu 3/25: vs. Diamondbacks at Tucson, 3:05
Fri 3/26: vs. Athletics at Mesa, 3:05
Sat 3/27: vs. Padres at Mesa, 3:05
Sun 3/28: vs. Mariners at Peoria, 3:05
Mon 3/29: vs. Reds at Mesa, 3:05
Tue 3/30: vs. Giants at Scottsdale, 3:05
Wed 3/31: vs. Brewers at Maryvale (ss), 3:05
          vs. Angels at Mesa (ss), 3:05
Thu 4/1: vs. Rockies at Mesa, 2:05
Fri 4/2: vs. Diamondbacks at Chase Field, 8:40
Sat 4/3: vs. Diamondbacks at Chase Field, 3:10

Mike Scioscia And Jim Tracy Named BBWAA Managers Of The Year

2009-11-18T19:04:44Z

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Jim Tracy matches his SBN manager of the year award with one from the BBWAA. Lou Piniella got no votes.

Browse more photos »

No surprise here, and the SBNation awards announced last week agree with both these selections.

Tracy got 29 of the 32 first-place votes. Two first-place votes went to Tony LaRussa and one to Joe Torre.

In the AL, Scioscia got 15 first-place votes, Ron Gardenhire 6, Joe Girardi 4, Don Wakamatsu 2, and one for Ron Washington.

BBWAA's NL Cy Young Award Winner will be announced tomorrow.

Cubs And Diamondbacks Will Play Spring Finales At Chase Field

2009-11-17T20:46:29Z

More photos » by Ross D. Franklin - AP

Lou Piniella says, "Get me out of here!" the last time the Cubs played in Chase Field; they lost 10-0 on April 29.

Browse more photos »

The Diamondbacks released their spring schedule today; included was the information that the Cubs will play the Diamondbacks in two exhibition games at Chase Field on Friday, April 2 at 8:40 Chicago time, and Saturday, April 3 at 3:10 Chicago time.

The last time the Cubs and D'backs played a similar exhibition schedule at the end of spring training was in 2003. The Cubs won both games and went on to make the playoffs. Just sayin'.

Zack Greinke Named BBWAA's AL Cy Young Award Winner

2009-11-17T19:06:56Z

More photos » by ED ZURGA - AP

Zack Greinke is the AL Cy Young Award winner. But that doesn't make this jersey any more attractive.

Browse more photos »

Greinke got only 25 first-place votes (of 28) -- why this wasn't unanimous is a little bit puzzling. Felix Hernandez got two of the others, and Justin Verlander the other one.

In a bit of strange scheduling, the NL Cy Young winner will be announced on Thursday; tomorrow, they'll reveal the Manager of the Year balloting.

Building a spreadsheet champion, 2010

2009-11-17T12:52:35Z

More photos » by Jim Prisching - AP

The Cubs' brass has their work cut out for them this offseason (AP Photo/Jim Prisching).

Browse more photos »

This post will be geared towards trying to find a way to build a team that can compete in 2010. Now, here are the rules I'll impose on myself: I'll start with the same figure Al used in his post: $145M for the upcoming season. In terms of objectives, I've got to find a way to get the team to the 90-win plateau. Why? NL Central champions have averaged 92.7 wins and NL Wild Card teams have averaged 90.7. If the Cubs want a shot at the playoffs, they'll need to build a team they can expect to get to at least the 90-win mark. How do we measure/predict whether or not the team can expect to total 90 wins? There are a lot of ways to do this. However, the one that provides the best combination of ease and accuracy is to use projections of wins above replacement (WAR). (By the way, I strongly recommend reading the 14-piece work at fangraphs on WAR I linked to there. It's an easy read, and hammers home how simple and yet comprehensive the WAR methodology is.) The debate as to whether that's wise let's try to leave for another day. Let's just leave it at this: nothing is perfect, but I've got to use something to keep me honest in my expectations, and that's probably the most accurate, rigorous option available to me.

The Cubs find themselves in a precarious position. They've got a lot of money locked up in only a few players, and that leaves them with little financial flexibility, particularly in the short term. Unfortunately, they also don't have much inexpensive help coming from the minor leagues in the near term. Most of their top prospects are mid-range arrivals. You almost certainly won't see any of them starting the season with the big league club, but you may see them by late 2010 or early 2011. The question is this: how do the Cubs bridge the gap between their current roster and the one that'll include current Cub prospects? Follow me past the jump to find out...

PLAN A: Stay the course.

Let's start with the 2009 roster. The Cubs have already committed ~$122,658,333 to 10 players from 2009 plus Luis Vizciano: Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez, Kosuke Fukudome, Ryan Dempster, Derrek Lee, Ted Lilly, Milton Bradley, Jeff Samardzija, and Aaron Miles. Al projected a total of $10,175,000 in payouts to the following 12 players: Geovany Soto, Koyie Hill, Jeff Baker, Ryan Theriot, Andres Blanco, Sam Fuld, Jake Fox, John Grabow, Carlos Marmol, Angel Guzman, Randy Wells, and Sean Marshall. Fontenot made $430,000 in 2009 so let's say he makes an even $500,000 in 2010. Heilman made $1,625,000 in 2009. Since these guys usually get raises, he'll probably make around $1,750,000 in 2010. Finally, there's Rich Harden. Most of the estimates I've seen have him getting awarded something in the neighborhood of $10M by arbiters. If you add it all up, that's a total team salary of... $144,958,333. That's our budgeted payroll for 2010. Now, let's continue down this path and see how good we can expect the Cubs to be if they trot out the 2009 team again in 2010.

There are number of forecasting systems we could use for this, but the most comprehensive ones already out for 2010 are those by Bill James, available at fangraphs. I've combined these with the projected UZR (fielding) ratings at SBN site Beyond the Boxscore. Here's what these forecasts predict for current Cubs position players in 2010. I show projected wOBA from James, offensive Runs Above Replacement (RAR) according to wOBA, defensive RAR according to projected UZR from Jeff Zimmerman at BtB, positional and replacement RAR according to fangraphs, total RAR as the sum of the other RAR's, and WAR as RAR/10. You can get more on the details of any of these columns here.

Player	AB	wOBA	Off. RAR	Def. RAR	Pos. RAR	Repl. RAR	Tot. RAR	WAR
Lee	595	0.386	32.2	1.8	-11.3	19.8	42.5	4.3
Ramirez	506	0.375	21.2	-0.4	1.9	16.9	39.6	4.0
Soto	473	0.362	14.4	0.0	9.0	15.8	39.2	3.9
Bradley	467	0.365	16.0	-0.9	-5.3	15.6	25.4	2.5
Fukudome	520	0.349	9.4	-6.0	2.0	17.3	22.7	2.3
Soriano	567	0.346	8.0	1.5	-6.5	18.9	21.9	2.2
Theriot	599	0.319	-6.9	0.4	6.8	20.0	20.3	2.0
Baker	322	0.346	4.6	-0.3	1.2	10.7	16.2	1.6
Fox	218	0.375	9.0	0.0	-2.5	7.3	13.7	1.4
Fuld	115	0.317	-1.6	0.0	0.4	3.8	2.7	0.3
Hill	218	0.289	-8.7	0.0	4.1	7.3	2.8	0.3
Blanco	172	0.285	-7.3	0.0	2.0	5.7	0.4	0.0
Miles	124	0.300	-3.5	-2.3	0.5	4.1	-1.2	-0.1
Fontenot	359	0.273	-20.0	1.4	1.4	12.0	-5.2	-0.5
Total	5255		66.9	-4.8	3.7	175.2	241.0	24.1

Now, lets look at the pitchers. I'll show their projected IP and FIP according to James, the replacement FIP for their position (4.45 for a relief pitcher in the NL, 5.37 for an NL starter, and 4.91 as the average of the two for swingmen), the runs/win for their environment, their pitching RAR, and pitching WAR. Again, look here for details.

Player	IP	FIP	Rep. FIP	Runs/Win	RAR	WAR
Zambrano	180	3.99	5.37	9.7	27.6	2.83
Lilly	170	4.3	5.37	10.0	20.2	2.03
Harden	135	3.67	5.37	9.5	25.5	2.68
Dempster	195	3.92	5.37	9.7	31.4	3.24
Gorzelanny	81	4.01	4.91	9.8	8.1	0.83
Samardzija	43	5.47	4.91	10.9	-2.7	-0.25
Wells	188	4.1	5.37	9.8	26.5	2.70
Grabow	72	4.17	4.45	9.9	2.2	0.23
Marmol	73	4	4.45	9.8	3.7	0.37
Guzman	58	4.11	4.45	9.8	2.2	0.22
Marshall	71	4.34	4.91	10.0	4.5	0.45
Heilman	72	4.25	4.45	9.9	1.6	0.16
total	1338	50.33	59.38	118.7	150.9	15.50

That's a total of 39-40 wins above replacement for the team. A replacement level team would be expected to win ~30% of their games, or 48 over the course of a season. This would put the Cubs at ~87-88 wins. That's not going to cut it... but it's pretty close. This is a team that with a couple minor moves could become a contender.

Of course, it isn't that simple. There's no way Bradley returns, and it looks as if Harden won't, either. That'll free up around $20M in 2010 salary, minus whatever portion of Bradley's salary the Cubs are stuck with. It'll also sap about 5 wins from the totals I calculated above, leaving the Cubs as an 83-win team. They could get some of that back if they move Gorzelanny into Harden's rotation spot, and move Fukudome over to RF, assuming Fukudome's time in CF and Gorzelanny's bullpen innings are replaced by, well... replacement-level players. That would probably net ~2.5 wins, bringing the team back up to the talent level of an 85-win squad.

How to they get from 85 wins to 90? I'm going to propose 2 ways of doing this. First, I'll go the trade route...

PLAN B: Trade for Granderson, and all will be well

The answer to many of the Cubs' problems has been pointed out before: Curtis Granderson. He's relatively young, relatively inexpensive, plays a premium defensive position and one that no one currently on the team can play effectively. He's also left-handed, and would bring balance back to the lineup after Bradley's departure. What would it take to get him? Well, Jake Fox is a pretty darn good hitter. Unfortunately, he's a butcher in the OF. What he needs is a team that can get him plenty of at bats at DH and occasionally play him at 3rd and in corner OF spots. The Tigers are just such a team. Now the deal won't end with Fox, not by a long shot. The Tigers are rumored to be interested in Austin Jackson, a CF prospect with the Yankees. The Cubs have two CF prospects that should interest the Tigers: Brett Jackson and Tyler Colvin. I'd let them have their pick of the two (but I'd try Colvin first). That's still probably not enough to get a deal done. Here's where I'm going to speculate a little. The Granderson rumors have been often explained as being part of an effort by the Tigers to shed payroll. Given Granderson's modest salary, that simply doesn't make sense unless the reports are wrong... or unless Granderson is "bait" the Tigers are dangling on the end of the hook of one of their horrible contracts. Here's what I'd propose: in addition to two prospects, the Cubs send Ryan Theriot to Detroit. In return, the Cubs get Granderson and take on one of Detroit's bad contracts in Carlos Guillen. The Tigers would get a prospect and two inexpensive, cost-controlled players. In return, the Cubs would get Granderson to play CF, and Guillen to play SS (or 2B if/when Castro emerges). The Cubs would also take on $18.5M in salary (the Tigers would take on ~$1M). This leaves ~$3M to play with. If possible, I spend that money on Pat Burrell in the oft-rumored deal between the Cubs and the Rays. Give the Rays that remaining $3M to make up the difference between Burrell's 2010 salary and that of Bradley and take the straight-up swap. (You'd likely have to then send another payment to cover a portion of Bradley's salary in 2011). You 'd use Burrell as a platoon "partner" with Fukudome and Granderson (though not obviously on the same day), to rest Soriano and Lee, and as an incredible bench bat. With those two moves, the Cubs salary would stay at ~$145, and they would also probably be a contender. Guillen and Granderson would bring about 5-wins to the table, putting the Cubs back up at the 90-win plateau. Anything Burrell added on top of that would be gravy. (EDIT: I just realized that this puts the Cubs' payroll closer to $150M. I spent the money on MB, but forgot to add in Burrell's salary! I'd just change this idea to "trade for Granderson and Guillen, and pay most of MB's salary while trading him for prospects. That, or give up more prospects in the Detroit deal, hold onto Theriot instead of Guillen, and use the money I slotted for Guillen on Burrell, instead.)

PLAN C: Hit the FA market for a CF and a 2B.

Now, if the Tigers trade rumors are just that... then the Cubs have to look elsewhere. In this case, I'm going to try to ditch the trade rumors and fill out the squad with free agents. Without a trade for Granderson, the Cubs would still need to find a CF'er. Marlon Byrd would fit nicely in CF, as would Mike Cameron. I'd offer them both 1-2 year deals worth $5-7M per season. That would leave the Cubs lineup extremely RH-heavy, so I'd also pursue Rick Ankiel as a platoon partner/4th OF/Soriano insurance. I'd offer Ankiel less money, but I also think he'll get less than the other two. If he isn't interested in a Reed Johnson-type contract (worth about $3M/season) then I'd pass. These moves would net about 2-wins, leaving the team a few wins short of the playoffs. The most obvious place for another upgrade would at this point be 2B. If the Cubs get Byrd to play CF, they should really look for a 2B that can hit left-handed. The best options that fit that description are Orlando Hudson and Felipe Lopez. I'd take either, and would again offer 1-2 year contracts worth $5-7M per season. In this scenario, Mike Fontenot would become expendable, as Jeff Baker would become the team's "DeRosa-style" utility fielder, and Blanco would be the late-inning defensive replacement. I would try to find him another home. Notice that in this scenario, the Cubs would only take on $14-$17M of salary in the free agent signings. They'd also be a little shy of 90 wins, so this is a team that would probably have to add another piece (a closer/late-inning reliever, most likely) at the trade deadline. I'd use whatever is left over to move Bradley for prospects, a bench bat, or some pitching.

So there you have it. Three plans for the Cubs. They could stay the course, trade for Granderson, or sign Byrd/Cameron AND Lopez/Hudson. And all of these scenarios yield Cubs teams that project to finish the season with 90 wins while keeping the total team salary under $145,000,000.

Andrew Bailey And Chris Coghlan Named BBWAA's Rookies Of The Year

2009-11-16T19:45:48Z

More photos » by Lynne Sladky - AP

NL Rookie of the Year 2009, Chris Coghlan of the Marlins.

Browse more photos »

When I posted the results of the SBNation voting for various awards last week, I also posted the BCB ballots and the results of the voting. I thought that was a courtesy to you, the reader, and also informative.

The BBWAA, apparently, feels differently, or maybe it's MLB's fault -- it took me half an hour of searching, after the results came out, to find this single article which tells us that Randy Wells got a second-place vote and finished fifth.

I haven't yet been able to find any online source that has the table of voting. Seriously, how difficult is this? If I can do it, why can't MLB?

Regarding Andrew Bailey, he had a fine year but might not even have been the best rookie on his own team (Brett Anderson also had a good year, but finished fifth). I'd have voted for Gordon Beckham in the AL, myself.

2009 BCB Free Agent Frenzy Contest

2009-11-16T14:00:24Z

by Nam Y Huh - AP

Where will Mark DeRosa play baseball in 2010?

View full size photo »

As I have done here each of the last four years, I'm going to run a contest, beginning today, matching the MLB.com Free Agent Frenzy contest.

The rules are pretty simple. You'll find, after the jump, the 15 free agents that MLB.com lists in its contest. Choose the team you think the free agent is going to sign with, and your "confidence" level expressed in a point value. In other words, if you are absolutely, positively certain that Mark DeRosa is going to return to the Cubs (NOTE! Joke! I'm not suggesting this, just using it as an example), you'd assign that pick 15 points. If you'd love to see Aroldis Chapman in a Cubs uniform, but you think that's extremely unlikely, give that pick one point.

Leave your picks in the comments to this post. We'll have the same deadline for picks as the MLB.com contest: one week from today, 4 pm CST on Monday, November 23. A winner will be chosen after all 15 free agents are signed. I'll need a volunteer to keep track of the entries -- and incidentally, because one of the players in last year's contest (Ben Sheets) never signed, we never did choose a winner. If someone wants to go through last year's entries and let me know who won, I'll send out the prize -- same prize this year as last, a copy of "The Cubs", a comprehensive history of the Cubs by Glenn Stout. Like the MLB.com contest, if any of these free agents remains unsigned on March 1, we'll declare the contest over and name a winner.

Here are the 15 players for this year's contest:

Jason Bay, OF Erik Bedard, SP Russell Branyan, 1B Aroldis Chapman, SP Johnny Damon, OF Mark DeRosa, 3B Jermaine Dye, OF Chone Figgins, 3B Vladimir Guerrero, DH Rich Harden, SP Matt Holliday, OF John Lackey, SP Hideki Matsui, DH Miguel Tejada, SS Jose Valverde, RP

And, I'll begin with my own picks (if, somehow, I win, the prize will go to the 2nd-place finisher).

15: Aroldis Chapman, Yankees
14: Chone Figgins, White Sox
13: Hideki Matsui, Yankees
12: John Lackey, Angels
11: Jermaine Dye, Rays
10: Jason Bay, Red Sox
9: Jose Valverde, Astros
8: Miguel Tejada, Mariners
7: Matt Holliday, Mariners
6: Rich Harden, Red Sox
5: Mark DeRosa, Cubs
4: Johnny Damon, Yankees
3: Russell Branyan, Rays
2: Vladimir Guerrero, White Sox
1: Erik Bedard, Brewers

Before Ricketts Was The Name Of A Cubs Owner... (A Photo Essay)

2009-11-15T14:00:33Z

... it was the name of a popular restaurant about a mile from Wrigley Field that used to advertise on the building on Waveland where you now see an ad for an Indiana casino and where, for many years, there was an ad for a national beer brand.

When those of us "of a certain age" were kids, that building had, for decades, an ad for WGN radio and television, the perfect ad for the stations that still carry Cubs baseball. But exactly when did that ad go up? This post was prompted by the following, that appeared on page two of the sports section of the dead-tree edition of the Chicago Tribune on Friday, October 30, the day Tom Ricketts was introduced as owner of the Cubs:

Before you go below the fold to read the rest of this history lesson, take a close look at that photo -- click on it to open a large version in a new browser window. That'll be important later on.

The Ricketts family that now owns the Cubs is, as far as I can tell, no relation to the Ricketts family that owned several restaurants in Chicago and the suburbs, beginning as early as 1904 and continuing into the mid-1970's. The restaurant at 2727 N. Clark, about a mile from Wrigley Field, was open until at least 1963, when that area began to suffer a bit of a decline, not to be stemmed until the late 1970's.

And, that restaurant advertised on the building on Waveland across from Wrigley for much of the time ... but until 1962? That didn't seem right to me; in addition, look again at the clothes the grounds crew were wearing when laying the sod. Those don't look like 1960's clothes, do they? There's a WGN ad visible on the building -- but it's only for WGN radio, not WGN-TV.

Armed with this information, let's look at the history of that building, along with a number of photos of historic Wrigley Field. The following four photos are courtesy of the Baseball Hall of Fame and the book "A Day At The Park" by William Hartel (all photos in this post will open a larger version in a new window if you left-click on them):

Wrigley Field in 1925. Note that the building didn't yet have the roof alcove that became a common sight there until it was removed before the 2009 season.

Aerial view of Wrigley Field in the early 1930's. Still no alcove on the building. Note the field being resodded.

Wrigley Field in 1936. The building now has the alcove; it appears there's an ad there, but it's hard to read with the sun glaring off the rooftop.

Wrigley Field in 1938, just after the brick-walled bleachers were built -- a clear view of the Ricketts ad on the roof of the building.

The Ricketts restaurant was also an advertiser in the Wrigley Field scorecard for many years -- here's a reproduction of the last such ad, in 1941:

But that still doesn't tell us when the Tribune photo was taken. One clue is this: the center field bleachers were closed in 1953 because of complaints about hitters not being able to see the ball in a sea of white shirts; the only time anyone sat there after that was for the 1962 All-Star Game. This photo of Stan Musial and Yogi Berra taken at the '62 ASG appears to show the Ricketts ad -- but also an ad for WGN-TV. But that Ricketts ad might have been placed there just for that game, or for that year, and it doesn't match the photo in the Tribune, because there is no WGN-TV ad on the Tribune photo. To me, the "smoking gun" telling us the Tribune photo could not have been taken in 1962 is this photo, posted courtesy of eBay member "nicepictures":

This remarkably clear photo was taken April 29, 1961 -- a game the Cubs lost to the Dodgers 9-4. The scoreboard precisely matches the scores of the other games that day, and the game you see on the bottom left says "NEW YORK/HOUSTON 1962"; that was the only year the AL had 10 teams and the NL had eight. And there's an ad on the building -- but it doesn't appear to be the Ricketts ad. The WGN-TV ad does appear to be on the top of the alcove.

My best guess is -- based on the following clues: the photo of the field being resodded in the early 1930's; the CF bleachers being open seating, the clothing the grounds crew is wearing, and the fact that before the resodding project of last winter, Wrigley Field hadn't been completely resodded since the 1930's -- that the photo that appeared in the Tribune on October 30 was probably taken sometime in the late 1930's or early 1940's, not 1962.

There's no huge point to this post -- just another bit of obsession about Cubs history. Thanks to Mike, BCB cartoonist, who helped me with research and scans for this post. And I'll leave you with one more remarkable historic photo, also courtesy of eBay member "nicepictures". If you think the iconic Wrigley Field marquee has always been red -- think again. Before 1963, it was... blue. REALLY blue. This photo was taken during a series vs. the Dodgers, either September 14, 15 or 16, 1962:

I actually like the look. Tom Ricketts -- or anyone in management -- if you're reading this, as part of your upcoming Wrigley Field renovations, how about restoring the marquee to its original color? Red is the team color of the Cubs' biggest rival. Blue... that feels right.

Name This Old Cub

2009-11-14T17:14:39Z

No, this isn't about Ron Santo.

Last year, we did an occasional series of "Name That Cub", where you had to identify a Cubs player from the past from an old photo. It was fun, but in general, too easy -- because most of the photos I used were from the last three or four decades.

I'm upping the ante. Since it's a non-newsy baseball weekend, let's try Cubs from the black-and-white era.

No prizes for this; just for fun. And no clues, either.

A Modest Proposal: Bradley For Burrell For Millwood

2009-11-13T14:25:48Z

More photos » by Ted S. Warren - AP

Kevin Millwood would look good in a Cubs uniform in 2010.

Browse more photos »

I can't take credit for this one -- it was first suggested in this comment in the Pat Burrell Fanshot last night -- but I think it's worth investigating, as a deal sending Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Rangers, and Kevin Millwood to the Cubs would help all three teams.

The Rays were one of the suitors for Bradley last offseason and a Bradley-for-Burrell deal has apparently been on and off the table between the Cubs and Rays since the middle of the 2009 season. Thus, we know they still have interest in him, and given the fact that Bradley has said he doesn't like to be in the spotlight, Tampa, a low-key baseball environment, might be very good for him.

Here's the problem with Burrell as a Cub, though: he's a DH. Last year, he played only two games in the outfield, starting one (in RF) and playing two innings in LF in the other. He wasn't a very good outfielder when he was with the Phillies; he played 1B, his "best" natural fielding position, in his first full major league season, then moved to the outfield because the Phillies acquired players (Travis Lee and then Jim Thome) who would have been even worse in the outfield than Burrell.

Since the National League doesn't have the DH rule -- yet; I still expect that having the DH in the NL will be a bargaining chip in the next round of player/owner labor negotiations -- Burrell would be useless to the Cubs, even as a backup. You wouldn't want him in the outfield, and he'd be an expensive piece to sit on the bench and pinch-hit twice a week and maybe spell Derrek Lee at 1B once a month.

Ah, but the Texas Rangers do need a designated hitter. About half of the DH duty in Arlington in 2009 was handled by Andruw Jones, who wasn't much better than Burrell last year, and who is a free agent. Burrell's decline with the Rays last year is mystifying -- he was coming off a .875 OPS season in Philadelphia in 2008 where he had 33 HR and 102 walks, which ranked third in the NL. You'd have to think he'd rebound in 2010, playing in the launching pad which is Rangers Ballpark.

The primary reason for making this deal, of course, is the Cubs' desire to be rid of Bradley, and thus you'd have to equalize the contract money between the three teams, or at least come close to doing so. The Cubs know they are not dealing from a position of strength and will probably have to take on extra money, so let's look at what's left on the contracts of each of these players. All numbers are, as usual, from Cot's Baseball Contracts.

Milton Bradley is due $9 million in 2010 and $12 million in 2011.

Pat Burrell is due $9.2 million in 2010 ($9 million salary and $200,000 if traded).

Kevin Millwood is due $12 million in 2010 -- and a $15 million signing bonus that's payable over a five-year period from 2011 to 2015, presumably $3 million a year (though that's not made clear at Cot's).

If the deal were made straight-up -- each team taking on the contract of the player they're acquiring -- the Rangers make out like bandits, because they'd be losing a $27 million obligation (Millwood) and taking on a $9.2 million obligation (Burrell). The Cubs would be taking on some extra money in that scenario, $27 million (Millwood) compared to $21 million (Bradley). The total money owed to all three players in all three of these deals is $57.2 million.

We know, from numerous reports, that the Cubs are willing to eat some salary to make Bradley disappear from the roster. So how about something like this:

The Rays pay Bradley the $9 million he's owed this year, and $3 million (one-third) of what Bradley's owed in 2011 -- total of $12 million.

The Cubs pay Millwood the $12 million he is owed this year, two-thirds of what Bradley's owed in 2011 ($9 million) and half ($7.5 million) of Millwood's signing bonus over the five-year period -- total of $28.5 million, but spread out over a longer timeframe.

The Rangers pay Burrell the $9.2 million he's owed this year, and half ($7.5 million) of Millwood's signing bonus over the five-year period -- total of $16.7 million.

That, to me, would make the deal financially workable, and also make baseball sense, for all three teams -- the Rays get a player they have apparently sought for a while at an under-market price; the Cubs pay a few more total dollars, but can spread it out over a longer time period; and the Rangers get a useful player and more than $10 million of financial relief. This would also possibly free up enough 2010 dollars for the Cubs to offer Rich Harden arbitration, if they wanted to; if they didn't, they'd at least have an experienced major league arm in Millwood to replace him.

As we often say here: GETITDON EJIM!

2009 SBNation Awards: MVP

2009-11-12T14:00:27Z

More photos » by Nam Y Huh - AP

Mike Fontenot after a forceout of Albert Pujols in April at Wrigley Field.

Browse more photos »

No surprises here, at least not for me. I expected Albert Pujols to be the unanimous MVP among SBN voters, and he was.

The AL winner is the guy I would have chosen; you may be a bit surprised at the second-place finisher.

Points for MVP are awarded as follows: 14 points for a first-place vote, then 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 for 2nd through 10th place.

BCB ballots:

Al: 1) Albert Pujols 2) Ryan Howard 3) Prince Fielder 4) Chase Utley 
5) Pablo Sandoval 6) Adrian Gonzalez 7) Hanley Ramirez 
8) Troy Tulowitzki 9) Derrek Lee 10) Adam Dunn

Mike: 1) Albert Pujols 2) Ryan Howard 3) Hanley Ramirez 4) Troy Tulowitzki 
5) Prince Fielder 6) Tim Lincecum 7) Chase Utley 
8) Adam Wainwright 9) Raul Ibanez 10) Mark Reynolds

National League

Rk	Player	Team	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	Pts
1	Albert Pujols	St. Louis Cardinals	31	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	434
2	Hanley Ramirez	Florida Marlins	-	6	8	11	2	1	2	-	-	-	220
3	Chase Utley	Philadelphia Phillies	-	7	11	2	3	1	-	1	-	1	192
4	Prince Fielder	Milwaukee Brewers	-	5	4	4	7	7	1	-	-	-	186
5	Troy Tulowitzki	Colorado Rockies	-	4	1	5	2	3	3	4	1	2	134
6	Tim Lincecum	San Francisco Giants	-	4	1	-	1	2	2	3	1	-	79
7	Ryan Howard	Philadelphia Phillies	-	4	-	1	4	1	-	-	3	1	79
8	Ryan Zimmerman	Washington Nationals	-	-	1	3	3	3	3	1	-	2	79
9	Adrian Gonzalez	San Diego Padres	-	-	1	-	3	3	2	4	3	4	71
10	Pablo Sandoval	San Francisco Giants	-	-	-	1	2	2	2	3	4	3	57
11	Matt Kemp	Los Angeles Dodgers	-	-	1	1	1	1	5	3	-	1	56
12	Ryan Braun	Milwaukee Brewers	-	-	2	-	-	2	2	1	1	-	39
13	Chris Carpenter	St. Louis Cardinals	-	-	-	-	2	1	1	-	1	2	25
14	Derrek Lee	Chicago Cubs	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	1	3	2	25
15	Andre Ethier	Los Angeles Dodgers	-	-	-	-	1	2	2	-	-	-	24
16	Adam Wainwright	St. Louis Cardinals	-	-	-	1	-	-	1	1	4	1	23
17	Javier Vazquez	Atlanta Braves	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	2	1	16
18	Matt Holliday	St. Louis Cardinals	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	12
19	Joey Votto	Cincinnati Reds	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	11
20	Mark Reynolds	Arizona Diamondbacks	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	2	10
21	Todd Helton	Colorado Rockies	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	7
22	Jayson Werth	Philadelphia Phillies	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	6
23	Adam Dunn	Washington Nationals	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	3	5
24	Juan Pierre	Los Angeles Dodgers	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	4
25	Justin Upton	Arizona Diamondbacks	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	4
26	Raul Ibanez	Philadelphia Phillies	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	4
27	Ubaldo Jimenez	Colorado Rockies	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	4
28	Brian McCann	Atlanta Braves	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	4
29	Dan Haren	Arizona Diamondbacks	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	4
30	Michael Bourn	Houston Astros	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	3
31	Yadier Molina	St. Louis Cardinals	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	3
32	Nyjer Morgan	Washington Nationals	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
33	Yunel Escobar	Atlanta Braves	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1

American League

Rk	Player	Team	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	Pts
1	Joe Mauer	Minnesota Twins	24	3	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	371
2	Ben Zobrist	Tampa Bay Rays	-	10	6	2	2	1	-	1	-	-	172
3	Mark Teixeira	New York Yankees	2	3	2	4	3	2	7	1	-	-	158
4	Derek Jeter	New York Yankees	1	5	3	4	4	2	1	1	2	1	157
5	Evan Longoria	Tampa Bay Rays	-	2	4	1	2	3	2	3	2	1	106
6	Zack Greinke	Kansas City Royals	2	3	2	1	1	-	2	-	-	-	92
7	Miguel Cabrera	Detroit Tigers	-	-	3	1	2	4	-	2	-	5	74
8	Kevin Youkilis	Boston Red Sox	-	2	-	-	1	3	1	8	1	-	69
9	Chone Figgins	Los Angeles Angels	-	-	-	3	4	1	-	1	3	1	60
10	Jason Bay	Boston Red Sox	-	1	-	4	2	-	-	1	-	2	54
11	Kendry Morales	Los Angeles Angels	-	-	4	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	39
12	Ichiro Suzuki	Seattle Mariners	-	-	1	-	2	-	1	2	2	3	37
13	Franklin Gutierrez	Seattle Mariners	-	-	-	1	1	1	3	-	1	2	34
14	Justin Verlander	Detroit Tigers	-	-	-	2	1	1	1	-	1	1	32
15	Felix Hernandez	Seattle Mariners	-	-	-	2	-	-	1	3	2	-	31
16	Jason Bartlett	Tampa Bay Rays	-	-	1	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	22
17	Alex Rodriguez	New York Yankees	-	-	1	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	18
18	Roy Halladay	Toronto Blue Jays	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	16
19	Adam Lind	Toronto Blue Jays	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	1	4	16
20	Dustin Pedroia	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	4	1	13
21	Bobby Abreu	Los Angeles Angels	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	1	-	12
22	Aaron Hill	Toronto Blue Jays	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	-	-	12
23	Mariano Rivera	New York Yankees	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	1	9
24	Torii Hunter	Los Angeles Angels	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8
25	Brian Roberts	Baltimore Orioles	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	7
26	CC Sabathia	New York Yankees	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	6
27	Carl Crawford	Tampa Bay Rays	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	6
28	J.D. Drew	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	5
29	Jon Lester	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	5
30	Jonathan Papelbon	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	5
31	Robinson Cano	New York Yankees	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	5
32	Victor Martinez	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	5
33	Michael Cuddyer	Minnesota Twins	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	4
34	Shin-Soo Choo	Cleveland Indians	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	4
35	Michael Young	Texas Rangers	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	3
36	Jacoby Ellsbury	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	2
37	Jason Kubel	Minnesota Twins	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	2
38	Alex Gonzalez	Boston Red Sox	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
39	Nick Markakis	Baltimore Orioles	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1

Where the Wild Things Are - A Story in Pictures

2009-11-12T10:27:20Z

More photos » by Nam Y Huh - AP

Chicago Cubs relief pitcher Carlos Marmol celebrates his closing of a game for the 2009 Chicago Cubs. Can the Cubs expect to see more of this in 2010? (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

Browse more photos »

The Chicago Cubs are relying on Carlos Marmol to be their closer in 2010. Is this a good idea?

Well, Marmol is incredibly tough to hit.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

Marmol was tough to hit primarily due his ability to get strike outs at an incredibly high rate.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

In addition to striking out batters, Marmol also doesn't give up many home runs.

(via www.fangraphs.com)

So he's a great pitcher, right? He doesn't give up many hits or home runs, and he strikes out lots of opposing batters. I think everyone reading this blog knows Marmol's main issue. Control. Follow me past the jump to find out more...

Here is Marmol's BB rate chart:

via (www.fangraphs.com)

Yikes. That line is literally off the charts.

Marmol has been bad the last few years when it comes to getting his pitches into the strike zone. (Note the rest of the graphs are not from fangraphs. They're my own creations. I replicated their style so things would match up nicely.)

Unfortuantely, it gets worse. Marmol was pretty good at finding the strike zone in 2008. But he had a low (for him) walk rate rate in 2007, a year in which he was just as bad at finding the strike zone as he was in 2009. So what caused the discrepancy between 2007 and 2009? Well, take a look at the rate at which Marmol got opposing hitters to swing at pitches out of the zone:

So now we see that over the last 3 seasons, there were 3 different versions of Carlos Marmol. In 2007, Marmol missed the zone a lot. However, he was able to compensate for that by getting hitters to swing at his pitches out of the zone. In 2008, fewer batters chased his bad pitches, but he managed an above-average ability to find the strike zone. Then in 2009, he missed the plate and hitters weren't swinging at his pitches out of the zone.

What can we expect out of him in 2010? I consider his control in 2008 to be an aberration. As such, in my opinion this question boils down to whether Marmol exerts some... cough... control over whether or not batters are swinging at his pitches out of the zone. I took a quick look at the break on his pitches over at fangraphs, and didn't see any trends that jumped out at me. So I grabbed the pitch FX database and ran a query on the locations of all his pitches from each of 2007, 2008, and 2009. First, I'll show you the location of his pitches in the vertical direction. The following chart shows the number of pitches at each height, with the strike zone shown as dashed lines.

Hrmm... If anything, Marmol appears to exert better than average control in the vertical direction. He does this by avoiding putting his pitches low and out of the zone. What about the horizontal location? Well, here's the same plot for the horizontal axis, from the catcher's perspective (in other words, a right-handed batter would stand on the left side of this chart):

This is where Marmol's control issues show up. Pay particular attention to the right side of the figure. Marmol throws a lot more pitches to the right of the dashed line (outside to a right-handed batter) than the average pitcher. Perhaps more damning than the "normal" outside pitches are those that are -- as Harry Doyle would sarcastically say -- "just a bit outside." Marmol regularly misses the outer edge of plate by a foot or more. The average pitcher throws pitches a foot or less outside 19.5% of the time. Marmol did this 27.9%, 24.4%, and 20.9% of the time in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. In other words, Marmol has an issue in that when he misses he often misses by a mile, and this allows other hitters to easily identify which pitches to swing at.

To be honest, these numbers scare me quite a bit. I don't see a ton of variation in his pitch location distributions from year to year, other than the spike in strikes in 2008. I fear that spike was an aberration. And in all 3 years, he showed an increasing tendency to throw the ball waaaaay outside. If that wasn't enough, teams have written the book on him. They know that hitters should be able to easily identify the pitches that are far off the plate, allowing them to take balls and swing at strikes. The bottom line is that Marmol either needs to put the ball close enough to the plate to entice hitters to swing, or he needs to put the ball over the plate more often, like he did in 2008. Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to think either of those things will happen in 2010.

Cubs fans should stock up on the Pepto Bismol... and someone should warn Ron Santo to take 9th innings off next year.

Mike Fontenot Granted "Super Two" Status

2009-11-12T02:36:33Z

Mike Fontenot Granted "Super Two" Status

Fontenot is now arbitration-eligible; I suspect this makes him a non-tender candidate.

Cubs Spring Training Site Search Update: Why Naples Is The Wrong Choice

2009-11-12T02:10:18Z

More photos » by Tony Gutierrez - AP

Lou Piniella signs autographs during spring training 2009. In Arizona.

Browse more photos »

Today on cubs.com, Carrie Muskat posted this long article interviewing two of the major players trying to get the Cubs to move to Florida. Craig Bouchard is the co-founder of Esmark, Inc., who lives part of the year in Hinsdale and part of the time in Naples and Gary Price is a city councilman in Naples, Florida.

Both seem earnest and almost idealistic about their chances. But it was this passage that caught my attention:

Why would the Cubs leave the Valley of the Sun for the Sunshine State? Check the stats.

"The best answer I can give you," said Price, a Naples city councilman, "is I got the feeling from the meeting we had with the Ricketts family and Crane was that they want to win a World Series. Sixteen out of the last 19 World Series winners train in Florida."

Think about that, Cubs fans.

"I'm a numbers guy," Price said Tuesday. "If 16 out of 19 are World Series winners that train in Florida, that's a compelling argument. There are a lot of esoteric reasons behind why they'd be in Arizona or Florida, but if I'm starting from the beginning -- and I look at it this way for the Cubs is that, 'We have a tremendous history in Arizona for 40 years. What does the next 40 years look like?'"

Price speaks like a true politician. "I'm a numbers guy," he said. Okay, Gary -- let's look at the numbers.

Going back 19 years -- let's say he included this year, although he wasn't clear -- the only World Series winners who trained in Arizona were the Diamondbacks (2001), the Angels (2002) and the White Sox (2005). Sounds like a landslide, right?

Not so fast, Mr. Councilman. Keep in mind that until 1998, only eight of the then-28 teams trained in Arizona. So just on sheer numbers -- you're a numbers guy, right? -- 71% of World Series winners should have come from Florida training camps. And it's true that not until after 1998, when there were more teams moving to Arizona, did the World Series winners start coming from there. So maybe we should make the cutoff 1998, when the White Sox and Diamondbacks increased the Arizona contingent to 10 teams. Since 1998 -- 12 years -- three World Series winners from Arizona spring camps.

In fact, it won't be until spring 2010 -- next March -- that for the first time, an equal number of teams will train in Florida and Arizona. And why is that? Because teams have been making an exodus from the East Coast to the Valley of the Sun. The Indians, who left Arizona in 1993, returned last year. Why do they do this? Because the March weather is consistently better in Arizona than it is in Florida, and the teams are in much closer proximity to each other. After the Diamondbacks and Rockies finish up their final season in Tucson in 2010, every Arizona spring training camp will be in metropolitan Phoenix -- an hour's drive or less for every team. I've mentioned this before, but the closest spring park to Naples is the Twins' Hammond Stadium, 30 miles away. Next closest is the Red Sox' City of Palms Park in Ft. Myers -- 35 miles away. After that you're talking about Bradenton and the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, up to three hours' drive each way.

Why would you want to subject your players to that?

But in reality, let's talk not about the World Series winner -- because we all know that once you get into the playoffs, it's a crapshoot -- but instead, how many playoff teams trained in Arizona as compared to Florida in recent years. Let's limit this to the last 15 years, since the current playoff structure began, 1995-2009. That's 15 seasons, 120 playoff teams. I count 38 of 120 (32%), and given that the Arizona teams were only 29% of the total from 1995-97, 33% of the total from 1998-2002, 40% of the total from 2002-2008, and 47% in 2009, that sounds about right. Also consider that 23 of the 120 qualifiers were the Yankees and Red Sox, 19% of the total, although the Yankees and Red Sox are only about 7% of the total MLB teams. Point being: it is just as easy to train a playoff team in Arizona as it is in Florida.

That's another issue the Cubs should consider. They are currently the jewel of the Cactus League, the #1 draw. If they go to Florida, they become #3 behind ESPN's favorite teams. Is that really what new ownership wants? To become third banana?

The Cubs have trained in Arizona since 1952, except for a one-year detour to Long Beach, California in 1966. They are part of the fabric of life in Mesa and the Phoenix metro area. The Florida people may have been told that an offer would "be considered", as Cubs President Crane Kenney told Bouchard. But when push comes to shove, I believe the Mesa people will meet or better the Florida offer. The Cubs have made the playoffs three of the last seven seasons training in Arizona, and look like they're on track to become a perennial playoff contender. The Cubs belong in Arizona.

2009 SBNation Awards: Cy Young Award

2009-11-11T14:00:29Z

More photos » by Jeff Chiu - AP

Someday, Tim Lincecum will look older than 15. For now, he has to settle for Cy Young Awards.

Browse more photos »

For the Cy Young Award, Mike & I agreed on our ballots right down the line -- and neither of us voted for the SBN winner, Tim Lincecum, who got 18 first-place votes. Carpenter and Wainwright appeared to split the Cardinal vote down the middle, so neither could win. No Cubs received any votes; none was expected to.

The AL voting was more predictable; you might only be surprised by the order of the runners-up.

BCB ballots:

Al: 1) Chris Carpenter 2) Tim Lincecum 3) Adam Wainwright   
Mike: 1) Chris Carpenter 2) Tim Lincecum 3) Adam Wainwright

National League

Rk	Player	Team	1st	2nd	3rd	Pts
1	Tim Lincecum	San Francisco Giants	18	13	-	129
2	Chris Carpenter	St. Louis Cardinals	9	4	7	64
3	Adam Wainwright	St. Louis Cardinals	4	4	10	42
4	Javier Vazquez	Atlanta Braves	-	5	7	22
5	Dan Haren	Arizona Diamondbacks	-	3	4	13
6	Ubaldo Jimenez	Colorado Rockies	-	1	1	4
7	Cliff Lee	Philadelphia Phillies	-	-	1	1
8	Jair Jurrjens	Atlanta Braves	-	-	1	1

American League

Rk	Player	Team	1st	2nd	3rd	Pts
1	Zack Greinke	Kansas City Royals	28	1	-	143
2	Felix Hernandez	Seattle Mariners	-	17	6	57
3	Justin Verlander	Detroit Tigers	-	8	9	33
4	Roy Halladay	Toronto Blue Jays	1	2	11	22
5	CC Sabathia	New York Yankees	-	1	2	5
6	Jon Lester	Boston Red Sox	-	-	1	1

Cubs Baseball In Vegas... Stays In Vegas

2009-11-10T20:09:20Z

While the entire Cubs' spring training schedule has not yet been made public, today the Cubs announced that again in 2010, they and the White Sox will travel to Las Vegas during the spring campaign to play a pair of exhibition games. From the press release:

The Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox will play two exhibition games in Las Vegas next March for the 2010 Big League Weekend at Cashman Field, home of the Las Vegas 51s. The clubs will play on Friday, March 12, 2010 and Saturday, March 13, 2010. Games times are to be determined. The Cubs and White Sox will both feature split squads.

Ticket information is available by calling the Las Vegas 51s at 702-798-7825 or visiting www.lv51.com. The Cubs and White Sox will play a pair of spring training games in Las Vegas for the second year in a row.