Storms Are Brewing (And Why It's A Good Thing)

A popular question during last week’s skid was whether the Cubs were falling out of contention, and if so, whether they would become ‘buyers’ or ‘sellers’ as the trade deadline approached. Frankly, I just don’t see how this question makes sense for the Cubs in 2005. They’re in too weird of a situation. The Cubs cannot be sellers.

The economics of baseball would be much simpler if there was one general rule: winning teams make money; losing teams lose money (or at least make much less). It would be far from perfect, leaving disadvantaged teams with a deeper hole to climb, but at least we wouldn’t have extreme cases like the Cubs and Expos. The Expos could have won 100 games a few years ago, and they would have still lost money; the Cubs could lose 100 and still turn a large profit.

When the Royals unloaded Carlos Beltran last year, it was an easy decision. It made sense. He was making a lot of money, and the team wasn’t making enough to be able to afford him. Moreover, coming up with his money would not be an investment in next season because he was a pending free agent due to make even more. Trading him had the dually positive effects of helping the team financially in the present and both financially and talent-wise for the future. That’s a no-brainer if you’re out of contention.

While the Cubs could try to sign someone for whom a team like the Royals has reasons to unload, or while they could trade for players of comparable status, they just cannot be sellers this season. First off, Cubs' salaries are disproportionate to production, making a fair-value trade for the other team all but impossible. More significant, though, is that the Cubs team development strategy -- coupled with their unique profitability -- is not conducive to such a trade.

The question is actually three parts. Are the Cubs out of playoff contention? If so, who can they ‘sell?’ Then, how will this help for the future?

Are the Cubs out of playoff contention? No, they’re not. With the wild card, if they win 7 out of 10 anytime before September they will be within striking distance. St. Louis would have to start playing a PowderPuff team to blow their lead, but there is no team positioned to run away with the Wild Card. If the Cubs can eek their way in, then anything can happen. Four games past the halfway mark, they’re only three under .500, not thirteen.

That said, the recent move by Jim Hendry to send down Corey Patterson and Jason Dubois tells us a few things. It tells us first that there were no good trades available for what the Cubs have to offer (a point that should have been pretty obvious to anyone who took the time to really look at the Cubs situation, as we’ll see). It also tells us that Hendry is smart enough to insulate himself into a no-lose situation. If the young kids spark the team, he’s the rescuer. If not, he got the advantage to see what they can do in the big leagues, and it’s still not his fault for the hole the team built in the first place. Right now, the only thing Hendry is on the hook for is hiring Dusty. He’s mostly blasted for failing to shore up the bullpen, but all the closers he might have signed in the off-season have self-destructed this year, and his guy Dempster has done just fine. (Actually, he gave Dusty enough pieces to win in just about every respect, but Dusty has yet to use them correctly. I don't want to dwell on that, though.) Factor in the injuries, and Hendry ends up looking like he's done just fine.

Let’s say, however, for the sake of argument, that the Cubs are out of contention this year. This is what the people who advocate becoming a ‘seller’ believe. So, who can they trade for prospects? This is where the Cubs disproportionate salaries and unique profitability come into play. Most teams have to balance winning and profits to be successful; the Cubs just have to focus on winning. If a player is crucial to helping them next season, they can afford to keep that player’s large salary in a losing year. The only players that it makes sense for the Cubs to trade are players that will not help them in the long-term because they become free agents or because they are declining. In turn, these players would also have to help other teams in the short-term. Factoring in the salary angle, the Cubs do not have anyone like this.

Nearly half of the Cubs active payroll (and it might be over half after cutting Borowski and trading Hawkins) is in five players: Kerry Wood at $9.5M, Aramis Ramirez at $9M, Greg Maddux at $9M, Nomar Garciaparra at $8.25M, and Derrek Lee at $7.33M. Everyone except Nomar is locked in and will make even more next year, assuming Greg Maddux’s option takes effect after he pitches enough innings this season.

Wood, Maddux and Garciaparra all earn lopsided salaries to their production this year, making them unattractive to other teams. I mean, would any other team get enough value out of one of these guys to pay that kind of money? Nope.

On the other hand, Ramirez and Lee are too valuable. They’re worth every cent, and probably more. The Cubs can afford to keep them through a losing season (remember, we’re assuming for the sake of argument that this is a losing season). They have to keep these guys for next year, because there’s no trade out there for one of these two that could improve the Cubs.

Then you have the other side of disproportion, guys who are attractive to other teams for talent, but are underpaid: Zambrano at $3.76M and Prior at $2.5M (with $1M signing bonus left that the Cubs still owe). How could you ever trade these guys when they are so clearly worth so much more than you’re paying them? Even after you figure that they could get arbitration for next year, their low salaries make these two virtually un-tradable, because in any trade you would inevitably end up paying more and getting less.

So, who does that leave? If we take out everyone who makes so little, such that unloading their salary wouldn’t impact the team’s bottom line, we’re left with Barrett at $3.33M, Remlinger at around $4.2M, and Burnitz at around $4.5M. Barrett is probably worth more than that, especially since there aren’t very many catchers out there who could do as good a job. That leaves Remlinger or Burnitz as the only candidates for the Cubs to sell off to a contender. That’s it. The people who want the Cubs to become ‘sellers’ are -- whether they realize or not -- calling for a Jeromy Burnitz and/or a Mike Remlinger trade for prospects. (I’m sure teams are knocking down the Cubs door.)

I guess they could trade Todd Walker ($2.5M) but Walker took less money to stay with the Cubs, he's a bargain with a team option for 2006, and he's crucial to their lineup. Or I suppose they could trade Glendon Rusch ($2M), but would any team really give up prospects for Rusch? Even if there was a team willing to trade for Rusch, one can hardly call subtracting $1.5M to trade Rusch for a couple of prospects significant 'selling.' That's just a minor trade. It's not to say that Rusch hasn't filled in spectacularly for the Cubs the last two years. It's just that convincing other teams to trade decent prospects for him seems unlikely.

It would be different for another team, because most teams couldn’t afford to swallow 5 huge contracts like the Cubs have, or even the mid-level contracts. They would have to unload the contract(s) least likely to help them in the next two years. For the Cubs, though, unloading $4.5M for a pair of $0.25M prospects…would $4M really impact the bottom line? Not really, because the Cubs are pulling in enough of a profit. They sell out Wrigley, they sell apparel, and they have fine TV contracts win or lose.

More than this, though, the Cubs methodology runs counter to this sort of 'seller' trading. After 2003, the Cubs committed to a starting pitching core through 2006. That’s what they were doing when they gave Kerry Wood an extension through 2006. They have Zambrano through ’07. (He’s arbitration eligible, but this doesn’t matter since, again, the Cubs can afford to pay him). They signed Mark Prior through 2006 when they drafted in him 2001.

Let me say this again: After 2003, the Cubs committed to this pitching core through 2006. This is their current methodology. They will not abandon the plan in 2005. This team will not subtract any major pieces until they are out of contention next June or July, if that comes to pass.

At the time, after the 2003 season, I thought this was a good plan. For what it’s worth, I still think it’s a decent plan, and I certainly can’t come up with a better one. Too many teams, it seems to me, build teams with a one- or two-year window, and tinker too soon. I like that the Cubs, with their profitability in their back pocket, tried a three-year strategy. If it doesn’t work, I hope they try another three-year strategy...after the 2006 season. If they can sign Lee to an extension this off-season, then after the 2006 season they will have plenty of options for choosing who to keep, or to add to this next core of marquis players. When you already have two spots locked with all-stars (Lee and Ramirez), a narrower search to fill remaining holes gives you a lot more flexibility to go after your top choices.

The Cubs could still be ‘buyers’ in this whole mess, too, if it ever made sense. It’s just that nearly all of the teams with highly paid stars are still in contention (i.e. the entire NL east). There isn’t much out there to get. The Cubs do have enough prospects to attract someone, but it doesn’t make sense for them to gamble right now until there’s someone available that could competently fill a clear void.

That’s why I think we have to like what Jim Hendry did by sending down Patterson and Dubois, bringing up Murton, and earlier by bringing up Cedeno and (briefly) Rich Hill. Besides putting himself in a no-lose situation, he’s showing that he still wants to improve the team -- or at least to avoid letting them stagnate. Not that it’s a high-percentage gamble since these kids are unproven, but it is the highest-percentage gamble he had available. He’s still on the hook for hiring Dusty Baker, and I get the sense that right now he & Dusty have different strategies in mind, but if it’s true that Hendry is committed to being a GM who doesn’t tell his manager what lineup to play, he’s doing all he can.

Actually, bringing Cedeno up a few weeks ago should have tipped Hendry’s hand. We should have known that this was his contingency plan, to bring up the prospects. Dusty had to be wondering why -- with Walker, Hairston, Perez and Macias -- Hendry gave him another middle infielder with Cedeno. This is the sort of move that indicates the two have differing approaches right now, and I like that Hendry is finally sort of forcing Dusty’s hand to get these kids some playing time because Dusty’s handling of Dubois and Patterson has stunted them (although I should be careful not to subtract ANY responsibility for Corey's performance from himself). So far, Cedeno looks as fundamentally sound as anyone in the Cubs lineup besides Derrek Lee and Michael Barrett, and Murton contributed significantly in his first game.

I might be reading too much into things, but I thought it was telling that Dusty was sitting away from the team last night in the dugout. I think there are a lot of undercurrents behind the scenes. Frankly, inasmuch as it can’t get much worse than the status quo for the first half of the season, and since there isn’t a deal yet for the Cubs to make, I’m glad there seem to be storms brewing.