"The last time Derrek Lee was up for a new contract, he signed a five-year extension at the outset of the 2006 season and suffered a season-changing wrist injury a couple of weeks later.

"Now Lee is in no hurry to get a deal done before he enters his second 'walk' year as a member of the Cubs, confident he'll put up the kind of numbers that will make him a coveted free agent in November.

"Lee wants to end his career as a Cub, and the Cubs want him back.

"But there will be no negotiations this spring and probably not any during the season. Unlike last time, there's no guarantee Lee will be back.

"'I'd like to (retire as a Cub), but if it doesn't happen, I understand that also,' Lee said. 'It's really not a big issue.'"

Lee is a fan favorite in Chicago and has been one of the top players for the Cubs since his arrival in 2004, but the Cubs are making a smart choice in holding off negotiations with their first baseman. Even though Lee put together a phenomenal 2009 season at the dish, there are a number of factors that suggest the Cubs should take negotiations slow with Lee.

1. Age

Lee will be 35 in September, and the Cubs need to be completely assured that his skills are not declining before they recommit to him.

2. Power

After breaking his wrist in 2006, Lee's power numbers took a hit in both 2007 and 2008, as he failed to hit more than 22 home runs. Lee bounced back nicely in 2009 by hitting 35 home runs, but the Cubs need to make sure that his power is back for sure before giving him another lucrative extension.

3. Options

There are a number of quality free-agent first base options out there this winter, so if the Cubs lose Lee, then there are a number of players who they can go after to fill the void. Even though Lee is a fan favorite in Chicago, he is replaceable should his price tag become too high for the Cubs' liking.

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

Chicago Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said there is not a clear-cut date for the return for pitcher Ted Lilly , who is coming back from left shoulder surgery clean-up.

Media reports have circulated that Lilly won't return until late April or early May.

"I talked to Mark O'Neil [trainer] last week, and he said he is coming along fine," Hendry said. "If he starts April 15 that will be fine. I don't see it being anything unless there is some kind of setback that happens in camp. It was a real minor procedure. In fairness to Ted, we're not going to rush him either. If he's 95 percent on Opening Day then we will wait until he is 100 percent."

If Lilly misses a few weeks because of the injury, I doubt that will have a major impact on his earning potential. As long as Lilly makes 25-30 starts, shows he's healthy, and performs like he has over the past three seasons, there is no reason to think that Lilly won't be one of the most sought after free agent starting pitchers.

I'm sure interested teams will do a thorough evaluation of Lilly's shoulder, but at 34-years-old, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that Lilly has another 3-4 solid seasons left.

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

Conventional wisdom would suggest that the Cubs are now set to go after Marlon Byrd to replace Bradley in the outfield and potentially pursue a relief pitcher with closing experience (Matt Capps?) out of the bullpen. The Cubs are in the market for a centerfielder and a relief pitcher (at least), and Byrd is the best centerfielder left on the market and there are plenty of relief options out there for the Cubs to explore.

But, should the Cubs, now armed with their new found savings, opt against the conventional wisdom and try to sign Orlando Hudson instead of Byrd to fill their need at second base?

As of right now, the Cubs have Mike Fontenot and Jeff Baker as their primary options at second, which is not a duo that Cubs fans should be too optimistic about. In the best case scenario, both of those guys should be platoon/bench players that can give the Cubs the depth they crave.

If the Cubs could sign Hudson to a short term deal at a team friendly price, then I think Hudson can be a bigger asset given his offensive ability, defensive ability (overrated to a certain degree), and strong leadership characteristics.

Sure Marlon Byrd might give the Cubs a power hitting center fielder, but he will be awfully expensive and should require a multi year contract. If the Cubs choose against signing Byrd, they could go after a cheaper option on the free agent/trade market to fill their need in the outfield that will not require as much money or years.

Should the Cubs go after Orlando Hudson? Discuss and debate in the comments section.

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

• Finally get rid of Milton Bradley!
• Very little upside on return
• Carlos Silva stinks
• Save $9 million!
  
• Where does he fit on the Cubs roster?

Conclusion: It has come to this. The Cubs were forced to take on one of the worst contracts in baseball just to get Milton Bradley off their hands. On one hand they should be celebrating that Milton is gone and they got some savings in return, but Carlos Silva has been one of the worst pitchers in baseball over the past two years. I guess the Cubs will give him a look and if they don't like what they see, they will simply release him and eat the remaining cost. The Cubs can now use the Bradley savings to spend on a center fielder and hope that this deal is addition by subtraction at its finest. n

Mariners Perspective:

• Acquire a potential impact bat
• No more Carlos Silva!
  
• Bradley can DH or play left field
• High risk because of his terrible attitude
• Can they keep Milton Bradley sane?
  
• In addition to taking on Bradley's contract, the Mariners also sent the Cubs $9 million
  
• In the end, the Mariners take on an additional $5 million over the next two seasons

Conclusion: There's no doubt that this move is a risk for the Mariners, but GM Jack Zduriencik must believe that Bradley can give them the middle of the order production they need at very little cost. Taking on $5 million over the next two seasons is not much for the Mariners and Carlos Silva was dead weight on the Mariners anyway. The real question remains if the Mariners can keep Bradley sane, because if they can, then this deal has lots of upside for them and the potential to be a steal.

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

MLB.com: (February 15, 2009):"It's the Cubs -- who wouldn't want to play for the Cubs?" Bradley said. "They already have a great team in place. I'm coming in, trying to add something to that. They haven't won in 100 years. You come in and you know you have that, I guess you call it 'pressure'—that's the media word, 'pressure'—it's not really like that.

"I just want to be on a team that's going to win. That's all I want to do. Playing at home [stinks] if you're not winning. The Cubs, there's a good team here and we're going to win. I want to be a part of that."

Chicago Sun Times: (April 15, 2009):''I can be like that guy that you watch all the time for whatever reason,'' he said, referring to his track record of angry outbursts and run-ins. ''But I really think I've outgrown it, a lot of the stuff that I did when I was younger.''

Chicago Tribune (January 18, 2009): "I have every intention of being here a long time. This is where I wanted to be a long time. I've had it on my radar, so I have no intention of going anywhere."

Chicago Tribune (February 16, 2009): "As much as we courted him, I've never seen a player court us like he did," Cubs Chairman Crane Kenney told fans at the Cubs Convention. "He was scouting us in the third game of the division series, sitting in Los Angeles trying to figure out where he would play in our lineup, and he left himself, basically, with no escape clause.

"He was negotiating with us and really didn't have a safety net. This is a guy who chose Chicago and the pressure and the limelight. I don't think he expects to fail. He wants to be a Cub."

And for those Cubs fans that think the Bradley signing was some crazy idea that GM Jim Hendry just suddenly acted on, think again.

ESPN.com (January 6, 2009): General manager Jim Hendry talked to former GMs, managers and players who've associated with Bradley over the years.

"What I found out was the perception of him not being a positive in the clubhouse couldn't have been farther from the truth," Hendry said.

SI.com (March 6, 2009): Hendry was eyeing Bradley from a distance for quite a while, and Bradley was impressed by the GM's forthrightness. Hendry told him right away that he was their guy, but that he had to clear up a couple questions related to the ownership change before making an offer. Just like Hendry said, once those questions were cleared up, he called Bradley.

"Jim Hendry's an honest, fair guy," Bradley said. "You don't meet too many like that in this business. He told me it would take some time with the ownership situation but that we'd get it done. I believed him.''

Daily Herald (January 17 2009): "Speaking of assuming," Hendry began, "I think you've assumed in that question that he's not good in the clubhouse. We knew we needed a left-handed hitter by the first week of October, and if you noticed, we didn't sign Milton until the first week of January. So there was a heck of a lot of work done, a lot of information gathering, a lot of medical testing, a lot of discussion with a lot of his ex-teammates from every club, managers, general managers."

So it seems as though the Cubs tried to do everything they could to ensure that the Milton Bradley experiment would not fail. GM Jim Hendry took his time with the process in order to get as many different opinions as possible. What's amazing to me is that everyone in the Cubs organization thought that this would work—or simply just talked themselves into saying that.

Either way, the Milton Bradley experiment in Chicago has been a huge fail.

Thoughts?

Jorge Says No! on Facebook

Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

"A career year in 2008 that included personal bests in wins, ERA and WHIP earned Dempster a sizable raise from the three-year, $15.5 million deal that expired last year. But so far he hasn't exactly justified that raise, regressing to a 10-8 mark with a 3.72 ERA. In fact, his numbers are down across the board. He's given up more hits, runs and home runs than he did a year ago, with a worse WHIP and fewer strikeouts per nine innings. He hasn't been terrible, but the Cubs were clearly expecting more this year from a pitcher who signed the fourth-highest contract of any free-agent starter last winter. With his salary increasing each of the next three years and with a $14 million player option for 2012, the Cubs can only hope that Dempster will soon resemble the pitcher who earned that large deal in the first place."

While it's safe to say that Dempster has not been worth the big bucks the Cubs doled out to him this season, I can't help but think that Dempster's inclusion on this list is unfair.

Outside of a poor April and a injury plagued July, Dempster has been one of the Cubs' best starting pitchers this season. And while Keith notes that his numbers across the board are down, Dempster's drop has not been drastic:

WHIP: (2008: 1.21 ) (2009: 1.34)
K/9: (2008: 8.14 ) (2009: 7.54)
ERA: (2008: 2.96) (2009: 3.72)

In addition, when you factor in that Dempster's BB/9 rate has actually improved (3.31 to 3.07), and that his K/BB rate has remained the same (2.46), you get a better picture into the 2009 Ryan Dempster. Dempster is still a very, very good pitcher.

So is it safe to put Dempster on this list? I don't think so. Fangraphs even states that his performance this season was worth $13.7 million, which would actually make him underpaid (Dempster earned $8 million this year). Sure, his performance wasn't the same as it was in 2008, but the Cubs have reasons to believe that Dempster will perform better in 2010.


Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

And this time, it's serious. Bradley has been suspended for the remainder of the season a la Jose Guillen a few years back (minus the playoffs). Not good.

"The last few days became too much for me to tolerate," Hendry said. "I'm certainly not going to let our great fans become an excuse. I'm not going to tolerate not being able to answer questions from the media respectfully. Whether you feel like talking or not, it's part of all of our jobs.

"There's a right way to do it and a wrong way. I'm not going to allow disrespect to other people in that locker room and uniformed personnel, and I'm certainly not going to let a player, as was mentioned in the article today, (talk about) negativity of the organization."

It's become obvious that Bradley simply cannot return to the Cubs in 2010. Bradley has burned too many bridges within the organization. Change is needed for both sides. So as we look forward towards 2010, what exactly does the future hold for Bradley? Let's start by answering a few key questions.

********* ************

1. Is there any team out there that would pick up the $21 million that the Cubs still owe Bradley?

Believe it or not, this is possible. All the Cubs would have to do is take on a contract that is more egregious than Bradley's, which is not an easy thing to do. Unless the Cubs want to take on one of the worst contracts in baseball (i.e Carlos Silva, Oliver Perez), then the Cubs' best chance to trade Bradley is to accept the fact that they will have to eat some of his salary.

2. What team would be willing to acquire Milton Bradley and all the nonsense that comes with him?

Even though Bradley is crazy, I'm sure that some team would be willing to take a chance on him because when he's healthy and sane, Milton is a very productive outfielder.

With that said, Bradley's had terrible behavior and below average performance with the Cubs. I'm sure there aren't too many teams out there looking to pick up Bradley.

3. What team can give Bradley the "positive environment" he's looking for?

Obviously the Milton Bradley experiment in Chicago failed miserably. Chicago and Milton Bradley just did not mix.

So where does Milton Bradley think he needs to play in 2010?

"I need a stable, healthy, enjoyable environment. There's too many people everywhere in your face with a microphone asking the same questions repeatedly. Everyone is just bashing you. You go out there and play harder than anybody on the field and never get credit for it. It's just negativity."

So Bradley wants a healthy and enjoyable environment where there aren't too many people getting all up in his business. Wonderful. In my opinion, Bradley needs to go somewhere in a small market where the bright lights simply don't exist. as we saw in Chicago, a big city is not the ideal environment for a player such as Bradley.

Now let's get to the hard part, which "small market" team would actually take a chance on Milton Bradley?

-Padres? Nope. Been there and done that.

-Pirates? Nope. Do you think a young team looking to rebuild needs Milton Bradley around?

-Orioles: Doubtful. Even though Andy McPhail is looking for someone to hit behind Nick Markakis, I just don't think the O's have room for Bradley, unless they plan to have him DH. Any once again, do you think a young team looking to rebuild needs Milton Bradley around?

-Royals? Nope. Even though I wouldn't run it past Dayton Moore to make Bradley to KC possible, he's just not a fit here at all. I must say though, a locker room consisting of Milton Bradley, Kyle Farnsworth, and Jose Guillen would be highly entertaining and probably give Trey Hillman ulcers by the end of the season.

-Diamondbacks? Hmmmm, interesting. The Diamondbacks could use another big bat in their lineup and Eric Byrnes isn't exactly the world's most productive left fielder. I'd prefer to see the Diamondbacks stick with their youth movement instead of investing energy into acquiring Bradley, but the thought isn't that horrible.

-Mariners? I know, Seattle is not exactly a small market. But it's hard to ignore the fact that Milton Bradley would be a decent fit with the Mariners. I'm very fearful to see how Bradley would react in Seattle, but this could be a spot for him to succeed.

The Mariners could use Bradley in left field and when his various injuries act up, the Mariners could slot him in as the designated hitter. This team has struggled all year to find potent hitters in the middle of the lineup and maybe, just maybe, Bradley could give the Mariners what they are looking for.


Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

The Cubs get the big time closer that they NEED while getting rid of Carlos Zambrano's nonsense, while the Reds add a big time pitcher with a big time arm.

This deal would set the Cubs up VERY nicely in 2010 and 2011 and the Reds could have a potentially dominant, young starting staff led by Zambrano, Cueto, and Volquez (once he returns).

Not too shabby, eh?


Thoughts?

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com

Why this makes sense for the Cubs

-Castillo and Perez are only signed through 2011, which will save the Cubs money in the long run

-Castillo put up great numbers this season with a .310 batting average and a .400 OBP. He would solve the Cubs' 2B nicely and give the Cubs immediate production at the top of the order.

-Perez was miserable this season, but he still has tons of potential. Yes Perez is a headcase, but when he's on (in the past), he's been one of the better pitchers in the National League

-The Cubs don't have to pay a dime for the Mets to take Zambrano off their hands

-Get rid of Carlos Zambrano and his antics!

Why this makes sense for the Mets

-acquiring a pitcher of Zambrano's stature and age would be a major coup for the Mets, who have failed to find a solid No. 2 starter to compliment Johan Santana

-Get rid of Luis Castillo!

-Get rid of Oliver Perez!

Why this makes no sense for the Cubs

-Who in their right mind would pick up Oliver Perez right now?

-Luis Castillo...two years, $12 million? Pleaaaasse. That's too much!

Why this makes no sense for the Mets

-Can they afford to pick up Zambrano's salary including the money owed?

-What kind of prospects would the Cubs be looking for in this deal?

Bottom Line: Pipe dream, I know. I'd love to see Big Z on the Mets, but this deal just involves too much risk for the Cubs.

And honestly, this trade on paper just looks dumb. Back to the drawing board!

Coming up: Hypothetical Carlos Zambrano trade #3

Does this trade make any sense? Thoughts?

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Read more Chicago Cubs news on BleacherReport.com