Sox beat Cubs to Putz (and other stuff, too)
The White Sox just sent out a note saying they have signed reliever J.J. Putz for one year and $3 million. I guess the Cubs can cancel that session they had for today in Arizona to watch Putz throw.
Arthroscopic elbow surgery to clean out bone chips shut Putz down in June of this year, when he was with the Mets. He was 1-4 with a 5.22 ERA and a high WHIP of 1.64. Bill James projects better things for Putz in 2010: 52 games, 4-2 record with a 3.00 ERA and 1.20 WHIP. We'll find out more later today from Kenny Williams.
Covering the Cubs, as I do, it's fun to sit with Kenny at the winter meetings. His approach is unique. He exudes confidence. He hates media leaks. He's got a good sense of humor. He'd be fun to cover.
Speaking of our friends on the North Side, they made official what I reported yesterday, that they've acquired former Sox minor-league pitcher Arismendy Mota from the Nationals for cash considerations. The Nats took Mota from the Sox with the first pick of the Triple-A Rule 5 draft yesterday morning.
Tomorrow is the date by which clubs must decide whether to tender contracts to the players under their control. I expect the Cubs to do so with everyone but Neal Cotts. The Cubs will non-tender him but ask him back on a minor-league deal with an invite to spring training as Cotts rehabs from elbow surgery.
Those players with between three and five years of big-league service time who get tendered deals are eligible for salary arbitration, as is "Super 2s" Mike Fontenot and Tom Gorzelanny.
Carlos Marmol and Ryan Theriot are the Cubs biggest potential arb cases. Koyie Hill, Sean Marshall, Jeff Baker and Angel Guzman are the other arb guys. That's a lot for one off-season, isn't it?
Haven't seen any new Twitters on Milton yet, but the day is young.
Anybody else hoping that the Cardinals sign him for about 18 million a year? I hope Boras sticks it to them. I don't see how they will even be able to maintain a team if they pay him that much. How are they going to keep Carpenter, Pujols, Holiday, and Wainright?
Have the Cubs talked to the padres about him? nothing too exciting, but a decent young arm with potential.
I get the uneasy feeling the Cubs are being too timid in the player market this year. They certainly need to settle their outfield situation. I'm not a fan of Marlon Byrd. What he lacks is exactly what the Cubs need -- consistency. We know Sam Fuld is not an everyday player. We know that Burrell brings the wrong chemistry -- swings for the fences a la Sammy Sosa. I followed Mike Cameron this year, and he strikes out too much while hitting homers when you least need them. Stats are good but he doesn't play 'team baseball.' We need someone who comes to play every day -- an experienced, solid defensive outfielder who can swing the bat. He doesn't need to hit 30-40 homers or drive in 125 runs. He just needs to bat in that 6th or 7th position and be a threat to hurt a pitcher who lets down after our 3-4-5 hitters. Let's not look for a bopper; let's try to find that defensive specialist. We need a team leader for our outfield.
what OF'er on the Cubs is an everyday OF'er?
cjger31, add Ankeil to this list.
He might be a good player...I know Bruce said they are not in on him. I just think he might be a viable option...won't break the bank and has been a solid defensive outfielder. He will give you his full effort...coincidentally, Winn was compensation for Tampa Bay getting Lou from Seattle.
Bruce - let me lay-out a scenario: Say the Cubs offer Bradley a $17 million buy-out (so $4 million less than the guarantee of his contract). Then Milton becomes a free agent and is able to sign with whoever he wants. Then let's say Milton has a season like 2008 and puts up great numbers in'10. He then agrees to a one-year $7 million contract with that team for 2011.
This would mean that Bradley gets paid $24 million over the next 2 years, more than the $21m he is currently guaranteed. My question - does the Collective Bargaining Agreement allow for Milton to sign a new contract in 2011 while he is still getting paid by the Cubs? If he were able to get a $7m (or more) contract in 2011, would he get to keep all the money or would some go back to the Cubs (as happens in the NFL when a coach is fired, the contract he signed with the new team reduces the obligation from his former team).
If this were workable under the CB, isn't it an option for the Cubs to consider? Milton would have to accept less guaranteed money, but what he gets back is full free agency and more importantly, a chance to earn even more money in the second year than if the Cubs simply release him or trade his contract.
My assumption is this would not work with the CB, otherwise others would have tried already with people like BJ Ryan, but was wondering if you knew for sure.
...I'd have to say that would be a huge no-no with the players association. Guaranteed money is involved here. I'll have to check that out, though. Maybe our CBA friend-of-the-court mlp can shed some light. That's why I keep him on retainer!!!
The current Collective Bargaining Agreement appears to permit this. Article XXIII (G) (3) states
"If a Club and a Player currently signatory to a Uniform Player’s Contract desire to modify or amend their contractual relationship, they must enter into a new Uniform Player’s Contract that covers the then current championship season or, if signed after the championship season has started, the next immediate championship season."
The way a proposal of this sort could operate, then, would be for the Cubs and Bradley to agree on a new contract essentially identical to the 2 remaining years of his current deal, except that the guaranteed years would be converted to player option years with a $17M club buyout for 2010. Paying Bradley the money would then make him an unrestricted free agent this winter. He could strike a deal with another team for *2010* and probably would make up (or exceed) the $4M difference in salary right away. Anything he earns in 2011 would be gravy.
Under normal circumstances, the Player's Union probably would not object to an amendment of this sort. After all, it most likely wouldn't have objected if the original deal had been structured exactly this way, with Bradley able to take, at his option, $17M and immediate free agency instead of a guaranteed $21M over the final 2 years.
But to do so now would not be normal circumstances. Option buyouts normally get exercised during the free agency election period following the World Series; guys who get bought out simply file for free agency on the same schedule as guys whose contracts ended after the season. That was weeks ago now -- weeks during which Bradley's agent was not attempting to market his services like he would have been had the buyout been built into the contract already and exercised at the regular time.
Would that be enough to make the union fight against such a restructuring at this time? Search me. I wouldn't think so; but what seems reasonable to the fan in the street might look like The End Of Civilization As He Knows It to a labor lawyer.
But even if it is permissible, I don't see what's in it for the Cubs to do this. They're out $17M (which all counts against 2010 payroll for the Competitive Balance Tax, though that should not push them over the threshold) for no right fielder at all over the next 2 seasons; they still have to hire one for the next 2 years, with the average major league salary running about $3M a year. What's the big advantage to that over taking Burrell from the Rays and eating $11M of Bradley's 2011 salary?
Let's just say that this would definitely be the option to consider as opposed to outright release. And since you say it may be possible, that at least gives the Cubs something to negotiate with Bradley's agent. It would all depend on how confident Bradley is that he could hit again like he did in 2008 and keep his mouth shut to allow a payday in 2011. Maybe he takes less than $17M, though I doubt it.
Long-shot I know, but was always curious so appreciate the new knowledge.
But an option that requires buyoff from a lot of interests:
Tom Ricketts has to okay the restructuring. The millions getting shifted around here are his family's money.
Bradley has to agree. Essentially, the Cubs would be paying him $17M to go away, to which his ego might respond, "If you don't want me and can't trade me, then just release me. I don't owe you $4M of salary relief."
The Player's Association has to hold still for it. I'd note that if the MLBPA has any kick at all about the restructuring, then the closer we get to Opening Day the more likely it will block such a change.
And the Commissioner's Office has to approve it. As such a restructuring affects the Competitive Balance Tax, it would receive very close scrutiny. As with the MLBPA, it's likely that some of the considerations that underlie the Commissioner's decision wouldn't make much sense to the average fan.
Even before any of that, though, Hendry has to decide that he can't do any better. I don't know when he might come to such a decision, but I doubt it would be any time soon.
Bruce...
At this point, I think it would be best for all concerned to "bite the bullet" and get past it! The one thing I don't like about that is that the real culprit in this whole mess (Bradley), not only gets off scott-free, but actually gets rewarded!
I, for one, have also lost my appetite for dealing with the Rays, especially for Burrell. They have been trying to peddle him without success. The Cubs will have the same problem and every day he is on the roster, and every extra dollar that has to be spent to move him, will just continue the bad taste and bad feelings everyone has over Bradley.
What I would really LIKE to do is to leave the Rays hanging with Burrell, and keep Bradley. Keep him, but don't ever use him again in a game. Let him come to Spring Training and train himself, have him dress for every Spring game but don't put him in a single one. I would tell him to sit his butt on the far end of the bench, to watch or sleep, but to stay out of everyone's way, and to keep his mouth shut unless spoken too, until he is driven by splinters or piles to the DL for as long as he would prefer that over sitting on the bench. And if he raises a stink, suspend him again. I think before the season begins, Bradley will be very anxious to restructure his contract, and perhaps for even less than the $17M, and be gone, but at least he, and any other malcontents in the game, will have received the message. That's what I would LIKE to do, the union be da^&ed! That would be a great way for the Ricketts to "enter the league", by turning this lemon into lemonade and doing something positive for the game in the process. Now whether they have the guts to actually do that for the betterment of the game is doubtful.
So failing that if $$$$s is the real problem here, then pay off Bradley and get him off the team, off the books and off our minds, and look for the CHEAP way to play out a 2010 "throw away" season. Because that is exactly what it will be!
Psychologically, this mess is NOT good for the Cubs, management, ownership or the fans. Everyone needs something positive to focus on with the Cubs, and that can't happen until Bradley is dealt with and gone. And most of this responsibility belongs, not to Jim Hendry, but to the Ricketts. They wanted in, they're in! And if they couldn't foresee this day coming, almost anyone else could have told them. They, and ONLY they, hold the keys to whether 2010 will be a step up or a large step backward for the franchise. The clock is ticking!
and you rip on everyone else?!?
Where is the correlation that justifies your childish response?
Bradley deserves it. Hendry doesn't! At least not over Bradley or Soriano!
I only rip on people that exhibit childish logic, baseball ignorant criticism of Hendry, history and fact revisionists, people that try to sell lies, and just plain ignorance gone to seed!
What's YOUR excuse?
But Brolight believes managment made Hendry sign Bradley...LOL...LOL...He is just a puppet didn't you know...he has now real power...he just does what he is told by Crane Kenney and the powers above.
I think he picked a fight with everyone on here.
You're right ,Steve! You, Riggs & Matt are the only ones that post on this blog!
And I don't pick 'em. I just take the ignorance and childishness where it's posted, and it often has your name on it!
Like most baseball intellectual light weights, FIRE the GM, FIRE the manager, Sell the Team. That's the extent of your answers for everything. Of course that's about all you can say to get your name on the blog, because you don't know what's going on, and you never will.
Now the Bradley signing is The Ricketts fault because they bought the team. This guys is unbelieveable...He puts NO blame on Hendry...
Is how he makes it sound like he's sitting next to Hendry or talks to hiim on a daily basis. I'm sure out of everyone in the world, Jim Hendry would pick Brolight to confide in to make sure his story was told.
I love it. This has kept me entertained for days.....
Those were neither my words nor my intent, and you KNOW IT. You just can't comprehend the truth when you see it because it conflicts with your preconceived notion that whatever comes out of your mouth must be right!
So far only 3 bloggers, you among them (not YET counting Boozer), seem to have trouble understanding what I am saying, or can't help acting like a 6 yr old. Apparently, the great majority must agree, for the most part at least, because they are not debating, and seldom question, what I have to say. And they certainly aren't siding with the likes of You, perhaps because many of them watched how childishness like yours destroyed the Cubs MLB blog!!!!!
What in the world are you talking bout? You are a complete idiot. I know what you write...it's nonsense. You seem to think Hendry is a puppet...dance Hendry dance...Like I have said in earlier posts...If Hendry is a complete "YES" man then he should be gone on the notion alone. Do you really think that he has done that great a job? Taking away Ramirez and Lee and he hasn't done much...Since he was made to overspend on everybody...if he doesn't get credit for the likes of Bradley and Soriano...then nice signings like Lilly have to go the up management as well. Lilly was a nice signing Crane! As I have stated...you are a complete windbag Brolight...your are exactly what they joke about on the radio...
That's you Riggs...
You haven't stated a single thing about my posts that is either TRUE or that even accurately repeats what I have actually said, and MOST of the people on this blog know it!
You are the blooming idiot and the one being laughed at, because it doesn't take much of a brain to see you for what you are!
Prattle on, but no one with a lick of common sense will be reading, following or responding to you...least of all me!
The Red Sox-Rangers trade isn't official yet, but all indications are that Boston is paying $9M of the remaining $12M Lowell has due in 2010 with the Rangers paying $3M.
If I am Tampa, that's what I'm telling Hendry. We'll take Bradley if you take Burrell and give us $9.5M in cash in 2011.
Let's face it. I'm sure Hendry has tried his best to create a market, but this is the only option left unless you want to see Carlos Silva in Cubbie blue.
Hoops
You're probably right, Hoops! I just keep hoping that somewhere there is a 3 or 4 way deal out there that would make sending Bradley back to the A's work, and maybe netting Castillo for the Cubs.
I think the Rays would jump at that deal in a second but I think the Cubs are trying to stay below $8 million.
That's a lot to swallow when you aren't getting anything useful back for 2011. Then again, they have like $26 million in contracts coming off the books after this season so maybe eight isn't that much to give for nothing. I think that's what they are asking themselves.
Wish....
I wonder why Hendry is trying to stay under that #? You don't suppose it has anything to do with the budget do you? Or trying to move Bradley AND being able to sign a replacement?
That's what I mean when I talk about the short-sightedness of the Rickett's budget for this year. Budget's are fine, but they have to be realistic, too. And THIS winter the only REALISTIC budget is one that is stated as "$138M (which includes Bradley's contract) PLUS X number of dollars as an increase, plus anything we can save in moving Bradley. X being the approximate amount of budget increase Ricketts had in mind.
Stated in that manner, Hendry's hands are UNTIED because whatever he saves is just "gravy" or can be returned to Ricketts, and if he has to pay it all, it isn't hamstringing the other moves necessary for 2010 .
The reason the Cubs have 26 million coming off the books next year is because D-Lee and Lilly are free agents. My assumption is they will resign both with raises so that financial commitment only increases. We will have to wait until after 2011 when Bradley and Fukudome deals are up for any meaningful payroll relief.
If Hendry re-signs both of those guys and gives them raises then he should be thrown in the river. Some times you just have to let players go.
Come on Wish! Be reasonable.
Lee is slowing and beginning to show his age (just beginning, mind you), especially on D, and I certainly would like to see the Cubs with a LH hitting 1bman, because as long as they have a RH hitting 1bman they will ALWAYS have trouble balancing the lineup. But Lee can't be dumped unless we have someone coming up to replace him. Hoffpauir may or may not be that guy. We don't know because the guy didn't get enough REGULAR ABs last year. He has to get them THIS year by resting Lee & Soriano and replacing Fukudome often enough to be on track to get at least 450 ABs, or Lee's contract will be up and we still won't know....AGAIN! If he fails, then Derrick must be re-signed, but for no more than 2 years, and preferably 1+. I expect that he will be productive at least one more year.
Lilly's shoulder will make the determination about re-signing him. He has been a VERY productive middle of the order starter and from the L side. These guys don't grow on trees, but the Cubs are striving to be in contention every year now, and to do that they can take fewer risks on older players. Take the risk on the young guys who have a future.
ditto
I'd probably resign Lilly depending on how well he pitches, but not D.Lee, but do the Cubs have a replacement in the minors for him, or can they afford to trade to sign a good younger first basement, we'll find out.
I think you keep Lilly. Unless he has a completely off year coming off shoulder surgery, he has been a very reliable pitcher. If not the best pitcher the Cubs have had during his time here.
Lee....we shall see. If he produces like he did last year and 2005....maybe. If not, you can't pay a Mark Grace type performance that much money. Do the Cubs have a solution in-house? If not, what UFAs are available? I would love add Adrian Gonzalez, but you can't count on trades.
How much would you like to bet on that one? I'll take Lilly and Lee being resigned (and thus saving Jimmy H from the river. You take letting them go and having Micah Hoffpauir play first and Jeff Samardzija in the rotation. What are the stakes?
What the Cubs should do, is trade D Lee now, and then trade for Adrian Gonzalez.
Lee won't waive his NTC.
Keep in mind that Lee has the no-trade clause. I don't see him waiving it at this point, unless maybe Jim weakens the team even more than where they are right now. But I do see Lee waiving it to join a contender at the trading deadline should the Cubs find themselves out of the hunt for the playoffs. Lilly and Lee would both be valuable trade chips come July and the Cubs could always sign either or both back as free agents after 2010 if they so desired.
what they should have done late last year.
So it might be difficult to sign both back? Or at least you would need to consider that when making a trade. Aramis would probably be in the same boat if you sent these two packing.
I'm not sure why they would be more difficult to sign back as Type A FA's but it might be better by that point to get some top young talent in return and move on. And if Ramirez does decide to bolt, that takes another large contract off the books. He's an above average fielder and not only a gifted but a clutch hitter, but the the Cubs do happen to have one of their top prospects playing 3B. See what the top prospects can do and if and when a few of them start to show they are for real, then fill in around them with the right veterans.
Plus, without more talent...you can bet that Ramirez will opt out.
Ramirez opted out once already. I don't know what the other UFAs will be next summer, but I'm sure if Ramirez has a typical year....he'll be on the top of the list.
I dont' think Lee will be back in 2011.
Lilly's going to have a down year with like 150 innings pitched, tops. His future is more cloudy due to the injury.
Garrett Atkins (31)
Wilson Betemit (29)
Geoff Blum (38) - $1.65MM mutual option
Jorge Cantu (29)
Eric Chavez (33) - $12.5MM club option with a $3MM buyout
Bill Hall (31) - $9.25MM club option with a $500K buyout
Pedro Feliz (36)
Wes Helms (35)
Brandon Inge (34)
Mike Lowell (37)
Jhonny Peralta (29) - $7MM club option with a $250K buyout
Aramis Ramirez (33) - $14.6MM player option
Scott Rolen (36)
Ty Wigginton (33)
Doesn't need to get the same money though.
He could either opt out and sign a 4 year deal, $40 million type deal, or he could play out his 1 year, $16 million (including buyout) and HOPE he doesn't slump, get injured, age rapidly, severly decline, etc....He may decide he better get back on the market before any of this happens.
He would definitely be the leader of that group!
You can have all of them, by the end of 2010 everyone will wish the Cubs didn't sign any of them. And the Cubs will probably over pay them and sign for 2 years or more, and
will be difficult to get rid of.
Bruce,
I believe Tom Gorzelanny is also arbitration eligible.
By the way, I am thinking about Aramis and that player option he has after the 2010 season. I feel he will opt out again, and this time he'll sign with somebody else. So, what is the current trajectory for Josh Vitters? Is he on track to start by 2011? 2012?
Thanks,
Hoops
Yes, he is arb-eligible as well. Thanks for the reminder.
--Bruce
I think it is 2011?
Yes, we're saying the same thing. I said "after the 2010 season."