It was mentioned on another site recently that the Cubs should trade Derrek Lee and then sign Adam Dunn. This is probably not possible as Lee has a full no-trade clause and little incentive to waive it.  It’s also been reported that he was asked by the Cubs at the end of the season if he would waive it and he said he wouldn’t, but it sounds like a decent possibility.  Or does it?

Adam Dunn is very good at hitting baseballs as everybody knows.  He takes a lot of walks, hits a lot of home runs, and for good measure he strikes out a ton too.  I’ve not been the biggest fan of Derrek Lee, but in order to justify making this kind of deal it would have to improve the Cubs.  Let’s assume the dollar figures are a wash—Derrek Lee makes $13 million in 2009 and 2010 and Dunn is likely to get close to that over the next 2 years.  So there wouldn’t be any money saved.  What would the Cubs get for Lee?  Probably not much.  Lee is in his 30s, well into his decline, and hasn’t been good enough over the last few years for teams to give up very much and pay his remaining salary. 

So basically you’re looking at trading Lee away for a marginal return and not saving any money that could be spend elsewhere.  A Dunn vs. Lee comparison would work quite well here.  Little else needs to be taken into consideration.

Over the last 3 years on offense, Dunn has been worth 17.8, 33.1 and 28.6 runs.  It’s reasonable to expect him to worth about 25 to 27 runs, but let’s go with the average of his last 2 years:  30.85, or 31 batting runs. 

During those same years, Lee has been worth 4.6, 33.3, and 16.3 runs.  Lee spent most of 2006 on the DL with a broken wrist.  As we did with Dunn, let’s take the average of his last 2 years as a number we can expect from him next season:  24.8, or 25 batting runs. 

Dunn has a 6 run advantage over Lee as a hitter.  That probably surprises some of you.  We haven’t even looked at defense and we know Dunn is awful.  We also know Derrek Lee is overrated so let’s take a look at each of their projections from Rally, CAIRO and the average of their UZR at 1st base over the last 3 years. 

Name:  Rally, CAIRO, UZR 3-year average
Lee:  1, 1, 1.7
Dunn:  -6, -8, -12.5

If we average those 3 and round to the nearest full run, Lee is worth 1 run on defense and Dunn (at first base) is worth -8 runs.  To be honest, that’s probably generous.  His UZR the last 3 years as a first baseman (small sample size of course) has been -20.4, -68.6, and -26.1.  That’s only a combined 33 games so you obviously can’t expect him to be that bad, but I’m guessing he’d be worse than -8.  Let’s just use -8 though.

Name:  Batting Runs, Fielding Runs, TOTAL
Lee:  25, 1, 26
Dunn:  31, -8, 23

So you basically have the same player.  Lee is a bit better than Dunn, but it’s close enough that it would be fair to call them equal.  Dunn does add a left-handed bat that the Cubs currently need, but Dunn also hasn’t played much 1st base so the defense could really be an issue. 

I don’t see any reason to entertain this idea.  If Dunn was expected to be about 10 runs better then I’d agree, but he’s expected to be 3 runs worse.  We haven’t looked at baserunning either.  It’s hard to measure, but let’s use BP’s EqBRR, which is the number of runs added in baserunning.  Dunn was -0.6 in Arizona and -1.96 in Cincy.  Lee was -2.55 so even though Lee was a pretty bad baserunner last year, he was 0.1 runs better than Dunn. 

There’s little anyone can do, short of exaggerating their claims as was Dunn by some with regards to Dunn/DeRosa, that will show that Adam Dunn is a better first baseman than Derrek Lee.  Considering roughly the same cost for each and how difficult it would be to even trade Lee because of his NTC, there’s no point in doing this.  Dunn is not better than Lee and no matter how many times people say he is, it’s not any more true than it was the first time.  Derrek Lee has been overrated by Cubs fans, largely because of his ridiculous 2005 season, but he’s also been underrated by many the last couple years as well. 

This is an idea I have been kicking around for a while, and bits and pieces of this article have been posted before on other websites (notably Spurs Talk.com, as my alter ego, Reggie Miller.) 

I have a bad habit. When the talking heads at ESPN all parrot the same line, I become obsessed with proving them wrong. This is usually not that difficult.  For about two or three seasons now, an ESPN-mandated talking point has been that there is so much more parity in the NFL, as opposed to the NBA, MLB, and NHL.

Today, this discussion came up at ACB, so I decided to examine the issue.

Let’s make this very stark:

The Four Majors: Regular Season
MLB = 162 games
NBA = 82 games
NFL = 16 games
NHL = 82 games

My initial reaction is pretty simple. It is possible to be 17+ games out of first place in the other three sports, while it isn’t in the NFL. Therefore, the NFL’s “parity” is an illusion created by an unbalanced, short schedule.

Just for example, at the conclusion of the regular season, 9 MLB teams were at least 17 games out of first place in their league.  This was nearly one third of all of MLB. No NFL team had ever gone 0-16 before the Lions accomplished the milestone this season.  In contrast, MLB has had losing streaks longer than 16 games numerous times. The longest are the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (24), 1961 Philadelphia Phillies (23), and 1988 Baltimore Orioles (21).

At first, this is a sword that cuts both ways. Prior to this season, one could easily argue that the fact that no one had ever lost 16 games in a row in a single NFL season “proved” how much parity there really is in the NFL. Of course, the radically shorter season raises other related concerns. For example, is an entire NFL season even statistically significant when it is only 16 games? MLB plays over ten times as many games, and the metrics used in other sports are more or less adapted from baseball scoring and statistics. In the other major sports, almost everyone would agree that 16 games is at best a very small sample size for almost any form of analysis, and at worst, it is totally meaningless.

Due to expansion in three of the major sports, or Interleague Play in MLB’s case, no one plays a true balanced schedule anymore. However, baseball, basketball, and hockey at least come close, because of their longer seasons. Therefore, strength of schedule does play a factor, albeit a small one, in MLB, the NBA, and the NHL. However, manipulation of the short schedule is huge in the NFL.

To make this clearer, the NBA has the only thing close to a true balanced schedule. A team faces opponents in its own division four times a year (16 games), teams from the other two divisions in its conference either three or four times (36 games), and teams in the other conference twice apiece (30 games). For example, the Bulls do not play all of their Eastern Conference opponents an equal number of time at home and away, but this is done on a rotational basis and can be determined years in advance.

The NHL plays 41 games at home and 41 games away. Each team plays all other divisional opponents 8 times (4 home, 4 away), all other conference opponents 4 times (2 home, 2 away) and 10 inter-conference games (1 game against each team in two of the three divisions in the opposite conference). This rotates, much like Interleague Play in MLB. Unlike MLB, it is completely predictable and without exception (no “rivals weekend”).

For many, many decades, MLB had a true balanced schedule, since there were only 16 teams and no Interleague Play. Both the American and National Leagues consisted of eight teams. The schedule consisted of 154 games, or 22 games (11 at home and 11 away) against the other teams in the same league. Since 1969, expansion, divisional play, and Interleague play have changed this system considerably. The current system is extremely Byzantine and distorted by so-called “Rivals Weekend.“ For example, the 2008 Cubs will have played 31 games against the NL East, 33 games against the NL West, 82/83* games against the NL Central, and 15 Interleague games for a total of 161/162* games. There is a defined rotational system, except for the pre-determined “rivalries.“ (Can you tell I think “rivalry weekend” is bullshit?)

* The final game against Houston was not played.

At any rate, while we don’t have true balanced schedules in the MLB, NBA, and NHL, the longer seasons impose a balanced approach, and the sheer length of their seasons tend to negate the strength of schedule problem.

Turning to the NFL, we can see that the league attempts to use the short season as a “band-aid.“ Each of the 32 NFL teams plays the other three teams in its division twice: once at home, and once on the road (6 games). Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (2 games).

In other words, not only is the schedule unbalanced, it attempts to “self-correct” with a previous sample size of just 16 games.

MLB does not have a salary cap, but the general perception is that pro baseball is still competitive.  That is, there is still reasonable parity in MLB.  As the discussion above should demonstrate, this “parity” may be a function of a 162 game schedule. 

The general complaint with MLB is that the playoff system is “broken,” because Wild Card teams have been wildly successful since 1995.  A wildcard team has made it to the World Series 9 times in the last 13 years, claiming 4 world championships including 3 of the last 6.  Conventional wisdom (or more likely, conventional stupidity) attributes this to the WC team being forced to play meaningful games well into September, while the team with the best record may not have played a meaningful game in almost a month (see the 2008 Angels).

The truth is that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.  People forget that the wild card team does not necessarily have the worst record.  A quick look at the facts reveals an astonishing truth: the wild card teams are often just plain better.

Al and NL Wild Card League Records to Date
Tie for the best overall record = 1
Tie for or second best overall record = 9
Tie for or third best overall record = 10
Tie for or fourth best overall record = 7

Though the difference is small, it’s worth noting that more wild card teams have been the second-best team in the league than the fourth-best. At any rate, the wild card is not necessarily the true “fourth seed” of the postseason - more often than not, it isn’t. Of course, the better team has still lost a disproportionate number of postseason series, but the difference between the best team and the wild card is typically quite small.  Reasonable Cubs’ fans need only look back to 2003 as an example.  In retrospect, the 2003 Marlins were the better team, even on paper. 

At any rate, the evidence suggests that MLB probably doesn’t need to be “fixed.”

Coming Soon:  Some rudimentary analysis of parity in the NBA and NHL. 

Many of us have long thought now that the Cubs would eventually trade for Jake Peavy.  The information we had pointed in that direction, but it now appears the Padres may be sold soon, perhaps even sooner than the Cubs are sold.  If that’s true, does anyone still think the Padres trade Jake Peavy?  They may still be interested in doing so, but it will take a lot and the Cubs would no longer have as much leverage.  The Padres would no doubt be happy to just keep Peavy so the likelihood of the Cubs getting Jake Peavy has taken a huge hit, if it hasn’t entirely dwindled away. 

These are the kinds of things that make me question the honesty of people who say they “know someone” who said something like the DeRosa trade means 100% that the Cubs will trade for Peavy.  There is no 100% in this game.  Even when players appear to be signed (Furcal, Braves), it’s not 100%.  And certainly no potential trade that requires ownership approval when the owners aren’t even identified isn’t even close to 100%.  Then add in the fact that players of Peavy’s caliber just don’t get traded very often.  It’s often too hard to reach a deal for a player of that caliber. 

I said yesterday that I felt confident the Cubs would get Peavy.  I put my confidence at 10%, which I think is extremely high for these kinds of things.  I’d say the percentage chance of the Cubs acquiring Peavy has fallen to nearly zero.  The Padres ability to make many transactions have likely been frozen or will need new ownership approval at this point.  It’s going to be far too complicated to expect a deal to get done at this point.  It may still happen, but I’d bet not.

H/T to FrankS

The Washington Post says it appears that the Cubs have won the battle for Milton Bradley, which is nothing new.  It was reported recently that the Nationals had serious interest in Bradley. 

It seems like Bradley has a fairly firm but not-yet-formalized deal in place with the Chicago Cubs. One source in Chicago I spoke to today thinks it’s just a matter of time before Bradley puts on the C—especially because Chicago just dumped some salaries to clear space for the 30-year-old free agent.

Apparently Jason Marquis is out of the country and will take a physical when he returns.  At that point the deal with the Rockies will become finalized and I would assume the Cubs would quickly finalize this deal for Bradley. 

Or the Cubs could wait to see if the Rays struggle at which point it is possible they may choose to think about maybe entertaining discussions with teams over Carl Crawford.  That’s is clearly the best path this team can take.  Obviously nothing bad can happen from assuming all of that happens. 

 

Some of you around here may remember a poster that went by the name of Don Quixote.  He used to comment here frequently and is too busy to do so now.  He’ll occasionally send me an email.  I got one this morning that I felt deserved it’s own space.  DQ is a good guy and I respect his opinions, but I think he’s terribly wrong this time. 

First, he provides a link to something Buster Olney published this morning.  DQ agrees with what Olney says here.

I’ll be honest: I don’t like the moves they’ve made at all. I think the flurry of moves has made them more vulnerable—and in time they’ll wish they had simply kept Mark DeRosa, an extraordinarily versatile and underrated player, rather than spending millions and millions on Bradley.

We’ve already covered the trade of DeRosa and the signing of Aaron Miles.  People seem to be thinking that Aaron Miles is going to replace DeRosa.  That’s not likely going to happen so why assume it?  Why not assume what is most likely—Mike Fontenot getting the majority of the playing time and Aaron Miles backing him up, as well as backing up several other positions as well.  That’s why they signed Aaron Miles.  There’s no reason to be foolish and think they signed him to replace DeRosa.  They signed him to replace DeRosa’s ability to play several positions.  They are replacing DeRosa’s production with Mike Fontenot. 

So if someone wants to tell me there’s so much value in being able to play multiple positions as well as DeRosa, go ahead.  I’m not denying DeRosa is a better player than Miles, but the comparison isn’t between those two.  It’s between DeRosa and Fontenot.  Nearly every projection projects Mike Fontenot to be nearly as good, equal to or even better than Mark DeRosa.  Is Fontenot going to replace what DeRosa did in 2008?  Probably not, but Mark DeRosa isn’t going to replace what Mark DeRosa did in 2008 either. 

As for why spending “millions and millions” on Milton Bradley is a bad thing, Buster Olney says it’s because of his injury history.  A fair argument, but one that lacks an understanding of how players produce runs.  People seem to think that for some reason if a player misses X amount of games that he’s costing his team X amount of games.  That’s not accurate.  Not even remotely close.  The question is this:  can you expect Milton Bradley (playing time and all) to be as good or better than the alternatives?  The answer to that question is undoubtedly yes as we have discussed at length here.  Milton Bradley in 75 or 80 games is better than Adam Dunn in 160 games.  Milton Bradley in 60 or 70 games is better than Bobby Abreu in 160 games.  There’s no reason to think Bradley won’t play in at least that many games therefore this argument about Bradley’s injuries is irrelevant since he is a better player in less playing time than the alternatives.

Olney continues on and says that one “talent evaluator” said that DeRosa was the Cubs best player in 2008.  We talked about this yesterday and it’s ridiculously absurd to even ponder in my opinion.  DeRosa was very good last year, but we don’t need to make things up.  And Olney argues that the Cubs should have re-signed Edmonds and kept DeRosa.  Apparently Olney falls victim to the idea that a player who suddenly has his best few months in several years can somehow do that the following year over the course of 162 games.  People, it’s not likely!  The Cubs have been down that path several times and each time they’ve done so it’s failed miserably.  Players who are well into their decline do not suddenly become better ballplayers.  They can, of course, be better of a small number of games, but not re-signing Edmonds was far from the move by the Cubs. 

In fact, even if we were to somehow believe Edmonds could hit as well as he did in 2008 with the Cubs, odds are his defense would be so poor (it was bad in 2008) that even Kosuke Fukudome would be a more valuable CF.  Certainly, the platoon of Fukudome and Johnson is going to be as valuable as what Edmonds (and the other CF in 2008) did for the Cubs and Johnson is a below average defensive CF.  Olney provides other alternatives he must think are better than Bradley as well.

If the Rays were to struggle in the first half of the 2009 season, it’s possible (and this is pure speculation and nothing more) that they would entertain some trade conversations about Carl Crawford, who will be eligible for free agency after the 2010 season. If the Rays were not in contention in 2009, it would be better for them to deal Crawford in the middle of the upcoming season, rather than wait until the winter of 2009-10, if they can’t re-sign him. Another possibility would be the left-handed hitter Brian Giles, because the Padres intend to weigh offers for him next season.

That’s right.  IF the Rays struggle in 2009, they MIGHT (pure speculation) ENTERTAIN trade CONVERSATIONS about Carl Crawford.  Yep.  The Cubs should not sign Milton Bradley because the if the Rays struggle, Olney speculates that they could entertain teams in conversations over Carl Crawford.  To even believe that would be a good idea, you’d first have to believe that Crawford is better than Bradley.  He is not.  Or, as Olney also suggest, the Cubs could wait and see whether or not the Padres weigh offers during the season for Brian Giles and then, of course, whether or not Brian Giles would accept a trade to a team he declined a trade to this past year.  That’s a good plan.

Basically, re-sign a guy who sucked for 3 years, but had a couple good months in 2008, don’t trade a guy for prospects who will be replaced by someone as good as him, and see if the Rays struggle, and then see if they might entertain conversations about Carl Crawford and somehow hope the Rays choose the Cubs as the team to deal him to and if that’s not going to work (it sounds like a sure thing, doesn’t it?), see if the Padres are interested in trading Brian Giles and hoping he decides to accept a trade to a team he declined to accept a trade to just one year earlier.  Or in other words, re-sign Edmonds, and run out the same exact team as last year.  That always works. 

Olney concludes his convincing piece with another powerful argument as to why the Cubs are making mistakes.

there will be days next season, and maybe next October, when Piniella might be wishing he had DeRosa available—and maybe Bradley, as well.

I can guarantee you, right here and now (I’ll bet anybody 3 million dollars), that there will be days next season, and maybe next October, when Piniella might be wishing he had Albert Pujols—and maybe Tim Lincecum, as well.  Therefore, the Cubs should wait and see if the Rays maybe entertain conversations about possibly trading Carl Crawford (pure speculation) and if that fails they should trade for a guy who didn’t want to be traded to the team a year ago.  Oh yeah, Carl Crawford is worth it because he’s not as good as Milton Bradley. 

This is nonsense.  Buster Olney should be embarrassed with what he’s written. 

Back to the email I got from DQ.  He suggests that the platoon in CF of Johnson and Fukudome may not be as good as Edmonds.  I’d say there’s about a 10% chance that Edmonds would be as good as Johnson/Fukudome.  DQ also makes the mistake of thinking Miles will get 500 at-bats.  If that happens, it likely means he took over shortstop for some reason and the difference between he and Theriot is probably nothing.  He also notes, as have many others, that the DeRosa trade may not be a precursor to a deal for Peavy.  It may not be.  I’m guessing it is, but that’s only based on what little we know at this point.  But even if it’s not, the Cubs still didn’t get worse so I’m not sure there’s much of an argument there. 

It was also pointed out that Bradley was much better at home than on the road, but that’s not surprising.  Players are better at home than they are on the road.  He also adds that the Rangers play in an offensive park.  So do the Cubs so that’s not much of an issue.  Actually, Wrigley is more home run friendly to lefties than is Rangers Ballpark (not quite as friendly to righties).  It should also be pointed out that Bradley played in the more difficult league.  You simply can’t look at what an American League player does these days and compare it straight up to the National League.  There is considerably more talent in the AL. 

It comes down to one simple thing, really.  As I asked earlier, and as we’ve discussed at length, is Milton Bradley the best option?  The answer is yes.  There is no doubt whatsoever about this. 

One thing I really don’t get is that people want this organization to do things more wisely than they once did.  This includes trading players at their peak value, particularly players whose peak value is near or equal to that of another, cheaper player on the team.  People want the Cubs to do things like this…except when they do things like this.  Sometimes I wonder if Cubs fans just want to complain.  I’m not picking on DQ here.  It happens all over.  I think I’m guilty of that sometimes.  I swear, one day someone could say the Cubs should do this, this and this and if the Cubs actually did “this, this, and this” the next day the same person will argue about why “this, this and this” was the wrong move.  Is this baseball fans (sports fans) in general or is it just Cubs fans?

On New Year’s Eve the Cubs made a couple of moves.  They signed Aaron Miles to a 2-year deal worth nearly 5 million and shortly thereafter they traded Mark DeRosa to the Indians for 3 pitching prospects.  I’ve been meaning to post this link for a couple days now, but Indians Prospect Insider has a write-up on each of the 3 prospects sent to the Cubs.  Here’s a little bit about what was said about each of the 3 pitchers.

CHRIS ARCHER

Age: 19 Height: 6’2” Weight: 180 Bats: Right Throws: Right

Outlook: His youthfulness and inexperience was on display almost every time he went out and pitched at Lake County as he often struggled with command, but to the Indians credit they stuck with him in the rotation all year and used his time there to further develop him. The Indians love his electric stuff in the zone, and feel that once he starts getting consistent in the strike zone he has a good chance to breakout as a prospect. With two plus pitches, good makeup, and still so young the sky is the limit for Archer. He was young for the South Atlantic League last year, and some scouts think he would benefit repeating there again in 2009. It remains to be seen where Archer will go in 2009, but given how aggressive the Indians have been with other very young high level pitching prospects like Rondon, Gomez, and De La Cruz, he could find himself opening the season in the advanced Single-A Kinston rotation.

JOHN GAUB

Age: 23 Height: 6’2” Weight: 200 Bats: Left Throws: Left

Outlook: The adjustments with his delivery and arm slot have paid big dividends with his ability to throw strikes, and the drop in velocity forced him to learn to become more of a pitcher than just a guy who just fires the ball to the plate every time. He is certainly one of the top left-handed relievers in the system, if not the best, and should open the 2009 season at advanced Single-A Kinston.

JEFF STEVENS

Age: 25 Height: 6’2” Weight: 205 Bats: Right Throws: Right

Outlook: Stevens was rostered this offseason, so his option clock is ticking and now that he is rostered he will certainly be one of the first options the Indians turn to when they need reinforcements for the bullpen. Had he not gone to the Olympics, he may have made his major league debut last August. If he pitches well in spring training, he has an outside shot at winning a job in the opening day Cleveland bullpen as one to two spots potentially could be up for grabs. He should start the season in the Triple-A Columbus bullpen, and will make his major league debut at some point this season.

These 2 deals for the Cubs were obviously an effort to clear some money that can be used elsewhere.  The Cubs saved $3.2 million and assuming Fontenot is the everyday 2nd baseman, they are not worse in 2009 as a result of these moves.  They’re not better either, but that’s where the money comes in.

Sometime in the next few days the Jason Marquis to Colorado trade will become official.  Several reports indicated that each player had to pass their physicals yet so as soon as that is done the Cubs will have traded Jason Marquis to the Rockies for Luis Vizcaino.  The Cubs will also send a million bucks and their savings in this deal will be about $5.3 million. 

It was reported a few weeks ago that the Cubs had to clear some payroll in order to sign Milton Bradley, which appears imminent.  Reports indicate he’ll be signed for about 3 years and $30 million, which is a bargain.  The trade of DeRosa seems like a prelude to the Cubs and Padres completing a trade for Peavy, but as was the case last month, the Cubs need to get approval from whoever the new owner will be before they can complete that deal.  Gordon Whittenmeyer said the Cubs may know more about the ownership situation in 2 weeks and Hendry seemed to think they’d know within a month for sure.  Will a Peavy trade get done?  I don’t know.

What I do know and what we have known for some time is that Jake Peavy has a no-trade clause that he’s willing to waive for 5 teams.  One of those teams is the Dodgers and the Padre aren’t going to be trading him to Los Angeles.  The Cardinals and Astros haven’t shown any interest and are probably not capable of taking on Peavy’s contract.  The Braves are out.  That leaves the Cubs.  Maybe the deal doesn’t get done until July and maybe he ends up being traded elsewhere, but based on what we know today the odds are the Cubs will eventually acquire Jake Peavy.  Remember that the Padres were looking for pitching prospects and the Cubs just got 3 of them.  They didn’t really have a need for this in the organization so one has to assume Hendry is optimistic that these guys can get a trade done.  At some point.

Paul Sullivan reported over the last 2 days that the Cubs are expected to sign Paul Bako to be Geovany Soto’s back-up next season.  It will apparently be for a half million dollars so the Cubs are essentially adding a league minimum player to the mix to battle with Koyie Hill for the back-up job.  Considering how little Soto’s back-up is expected to play, this is the right thing to do.  No reason to spend more money than you have to just to get a service you don’t need that much.  It doesn’t matter who the back-up catcher is, if Soto gets hurt, the Cubs are going to take a tremendous hit.  If there was a catcher good enough to make that less of an issue, he’d be a starter somewhere and not a back-up. 

Spring Training starts in just over 40 days, or pitchers and catchers report at that time anyway.  It will be about 2 months before spring training games begin.  That’s about all that there is going on at this point. 

I’ve read several places that the Cubs got worse with yesterday’s moves.  Let’s just look at what they’ve done so far and ignore the assumptions of the Cubs acquiring Milton Bradley and trading Jason Marquis, which neither is official yet. 

DeRosa is worth 2 WAR next year, Fontenot is worth 1.5, and Miles is worth 0.5.  The Cubs saved $3.2 million.  If that money is reinvested it’s worth a little more than a half a win.  You can see where this is going.  The only way one can say what happened yesterday made the team worse is if they ignore the likely fact that Mike Fontenot will get the majority of the playing time at 2nd base next season.  Teams do things from time to time that make you shake your head, but it’s not common.  Most of the time they get it right simply because it’s relatively easy to figure out which is better is which is not.  As long as this isn’t one of those occurrences where an organization fails to make the right decision, these moves yesterday make the Cubs no worse than they were the day before. 

Now let’s assume that the money allows the Cubs to make additional moves…

Happy New Year!

According to ESPN 1000’s Bruce Levine, and The Sun Times, the Cubs have signed Aaron Miles to 2 year, $ 4.9 million deal. He plays 2B and SS, has hit .287 for his career, and carried a .317/.355/.398 line last season in 408 AB’s.  On my view, he’s basically Ryan Theriot with slightly better defensive capabilities. I don’t really have a problem with this deal, and, as I suspected, this appears to be a prelude to a deal for Mark Derosa with, according to MLBTR and Levine, the Cleveland Indians. You move Derosa at peak value for young pitching, which you can then flip to SD for Peavy.

Or not.

What do I know, I’m just a fan. But here’s something from a guy who’s not just a fan. Quoth Levine:

On other fronts, the Jason Marquis for Luis Vizcaino trade with Colorado is a done deal. The trade will be announced sometime over the weekend or early next week, when Marquis returns from a family vacation. Team physicals are the only elements missing before the deal becomes official. The Milton Bradley signing is also a done deal. The team is just waiting for the right time to announce it—probably when the team officially clears room from the payroll, which is peaked out at about $140 million.

Finally, and most importantly for the Cubs, they are back in the Jake Peavy mix. The team officially took themselves out of those talks on December 11th in Las Vegas, but after the Padres failed to find a match to send Peavy elsewhere (the Angels were a team the Padres talked to at length, with no result), it appears the Cubs, with consent of future ownership, will give it another go in the first couple weeks of January.

So it appears moving Marquis was possibly the roadblock, and with things freed up on that front, perhaps things on other fronts will now flow a bit more freely. As most of you know, I’m very much in favor of moving Derosa, as I believe he will never be more valuable, and adding Peavy and Bradley, while subtracting Marquis, and probably Cedeno, dramatically improves the club.  The loss of Derosa would hurt, depth-wise, but with Gathright, and Fukudome around, I’m not sure it’s so bad.

[UPDATE @ 12:16 p.m.] According to Levine, Derosa has just been dealt to Cleveland for pitchers Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer, & John Gaub.

With Marquis on his way out, it appears business is back on for the Cubs.  Melissa mentioned in the comments that Dave Kaplan said on CSN that the Cubs are close to a multi-year deal for Milton Bradley.  This is outstanding news as far as I’m concerned.  I’ve made no secret about how much I’d really like the Cubs to get this guy.  He’s a great baseball player and if he can stay healthy he’s among the best in the game.  With all the rumors flying around this evening, it should be added that Bruce Levine also said the Cubs were close with Bradley and that the Peavy talks were back on.  Buster Olney also said the same thing.  Levine also said the Cubs will now look to trade DeRosa (Levine thinks that could get done in a few days) and then flip those prospects to San Diego for Peavy. 

If Hendry can get this done I think we have to give the guy a great deal of credit for improving this club while not having much money to spend as well as the many other things that may be holding things up for the Cubs as well as MLB in general. 

You never know how these “deals are close” things are going to go, but Steve Phillips said that the Cubs and Rockies are close to a deal that will send Jason Marquis to Colorado for Luis Vizcaino.  Vizcaino has a career 4.34 ERA and posted a 5.28 ERA this past year in Colorado.  He was above average for the Yankees in 2007 and put together 3 really good years prior to that, as well as another really good year as well. 

Vizcaino will make $3.5 million in 2009 and has a $4 million team option for 2010.  Marquis makes $9.875 million and it was reported a day or two ago that the Rockies didn’t want to take on hardly any of Marquis contract.  I can’t imagine the Cubs sending the Rockies $6 million and taking on the $3.5 million for Vizcaino, but who knows.  The Cubs are probably paying at least half of Marquis’ contract meaning they’ll likely save no more than a couple million dollars. 

Lou likes hard throwing righties and Vizcaino gets it up to 92 mph regularly.  He throws a fastball, slider, changeup and a split fingered fastball according to Fangraphs.  He’s a flyball pitcher.  His projections for 2009 will need some work as they’re currently projected for Coors Field.  Bill James and Marcels each have him at 4.06 and 4.34, respectively.  Colorado isn’t that much more of a hitters park than Wrigley Field is.  I’ll post his other projections later on this evening. 

[UPDATE @ 7:15 PM]  Gordon Whittenmeyer says that baseball sources have confirmed this rumor and that the Cubs may only send $850,000 to the Rockies, which would give the Cubs a savings of over $5 million.  Troy Renck of the Denver Post says that the Cubs and Rockies have agreed to a deal in principle that will send Jason Marquis and “around $1 million” to the Rockies for Luis Vizcaino.  Renck says the deal could be announced next week.  Next week?  Isn’t this just Tuesday? 

The Rockies are going to swap a relief bust for rotation depth.
The Rockies and Cubs have agreed in principle on a deal that would send Luis Vizcaino to Chicago for starter Jason Marquis, according to multiple baseball sources.
The deal, first reported by ESPN, likely won’t become official until next week. The Rockies made the math work to get a starter they have coveted for a month, while removing a setupman who asked to be dealt at season’s end after expressing unhappiness with his role.
The Rockies will ship the $4 million remaining on Vizcaino’s deal for the $9.875 million left on Marquis’ contract. The Cubs are expected to eat around a $1 million on Marquis’ contract, leaving the Rockies to pay approximately $5 million for one season of the right-hander.
Chicago, meanwhile, still nets a $5 million savings, crystallizing the motivation for both clubs.

That $4 million is $3.5 million in 2009 and the $500,000 buyout if the Cubs were to not exercise the 2010 option for Vizcaino.  He has $4 million guaranteed.  $3.5 million paid out in 2009 and $500,000 to $4 million paid out in 2010. 

Bruce Miles says the deal is possible, but not done yet.  Then again, Miles actually cites the MLB Trade Rumors guys.  (dying laughing)

Interestingly, I doubt anyone will say this is like the Brian Roberts trade rumors, which is funny since about a week into the Peavy rumors people were comparing those 2 possible trades and this deal was rumored a couple weeks ago and some say it’s done, some say it’s only possible.  Apparently all annoying trade rumors regarding the Cubs will forever be compared to the Brian Roberts fiasco.  Never mind that there’s nothing annoying about a trade rumor, especially one that would have sent the Cubs one of the best starters in the game.

[UPDATE @ 7:35 PM]  Neil over at CCO heard Joel Sherman on XM Radio and he said the deal was done:  Marquis and $1 million for Vizcaino.  Also of importance, Vizcaino’s 2010 option becomes guaranteed if he makes 68 appearances in 2009.  Ken Rosenthal said the Cubs would send less than $1 million. 

Carlos Zambrano showed signs of wear and tear for the first time in 2008 and those who have been saying Zambrano will get injured or is already injured somehow felt justified despite the fact they'd been wrong hundreds of times. Whether Zambrano's injuries in 2008 were a result of the workload he's had or just a typical injury for a pitcher, we'll never really know. Obviously if Zambrano had never thrown a baseball he'd not have had these injuries so the workload is to blame, but was he overworked? I'd say not since, you know, he went through so many years not being injured and stuff.

I don't know what will happen with Zambrano's arm or any other pitcher's arm so I tend to ignore the possibility of injury simply because it's a possibility for all players, especially pitchers. Talking about it endlessly does nothing and has proven to be a complete waste of time in this particular case. I understand that all pitchers are performing a job that comes with great risk to their arm's health. I think most people understand this as well and this isn't to say that teams shouldn't take steps to do things that would potentially avoid an injury, but the reality of the situation is that it's not going to happen since winning baseball games is kind of important. Winning baseball games next year or down the road are less important than winning games now. It's always been that way and it always will be.

Zambrano could get injured before the season and miss the entire year or he could stay healthy, or anything in between. I don't know. Nobody else does either, but people worry about it anyway. I figure the projections are the best tool we have to estimate future production and that's what this series is about. As I mentioned in the last one, I've create a depth chart with the number of innings I think each pitcher will throw in 2009. I will also do this for the offense as well when we get through with the pitching. The point of doing this is that the projections are based on what they've done in the past and playing time is especially difficult to estimate. But we do know about how many innings the rotation and bullpen will pitch. We know about how many at-bats the starters at each positions will get and how frequently a bench player may play. We know things the projection models don't and it's silly to not incorporate some of that knowledge.

Below is what I wrote in the last article about the playing time (innings pitched) for the starting pitchers:

For the Cubs rotation, as it is now, we have the following pitchers in it: Rich Harden, Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis. I expect Marquis to be traded at some point so will not do his projection for awhile. I won't do Sean Marshall's either as he would likely be Marquis' replacement unless the Cubs were to add another starter via trade or free agency. So we have 950 innings that the rotation will pitch. This isn't scientific and these are only my estimations. Yours may differ and if so, adjust the WAR accordingly.

Lilly: 200 innings
Zambrano: 200 innings
Dempster: 190 innings
Harden: 175 innings
Marquis: 125 innings
Marshall: 60 innings

We've already taken a look at Rich Harden (link at the bottom) and while some people may throw his name around toward the end of the Cubs rotation, there's little doubt he's the best starter the Cubs have. Zambrano is the 2nd best starter. In 2009 Zambrano will make $17.75 million, which is a considerable increase from 2008. He'll no longer be a bargain. He will likely be worth what he is being paid though. Below are the projections available for Zambrano.

ZAMBRANO	IP	H	HR	BB	K	ERA
CAIRO	205	179	20	88	164	4.26
MARCELS	176	155	17	76	141	3.76
ZiPS	201	183	19	87	156	3.81
JAMES	196	166	18	87	163	3.56
Chone	185	181	19	78	144	4.14
AVERAGE	193.1	173	19	84	154	3.91

His average projection in innings pitched is nearly identical to the playing time I have estimated for Zambrano (200 innings). As you see below, he's worth almost exactly what he's being paid. I'm sure many will say he's not throughout the year, and perhaps he won't be, but based on what we know at this point there's no reason to think he won't be. At 200 innings, Zambrano is worth more than 3.5 wins.

Name	League	IP_Start	ERA	W/L	Win%	WAR_Start	WAR	$WAR	Actual	Diff.
ZAMBRANO	NL	200	3.91	1.24	0.55	3.65	3.65	$18.09	$17.75	$0.34

Running total for team projected wins (updated as I do each profile)

Replacement level team: 56.7 wins
Kevin Gregg: 0.94 WAR
Rich Harden: 5.75 WAR
Carlos Zambrano: 3.65 WAR
TOTAL: 67.04 wins

As of right now, the Cubs are probably a 90-win club. Perhaps a bit better, but probably not by much.

Penny is getting $5 mil with a max of $8 mil from Boston.
Johnson is getting $8 mil with a max of $13 mil from San Francisco
Marquis is due just under $9.9 million.

Source