Cubs Long-Term Contract Situation

[Guancous]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9936

 

Baseball Prospectus had an article today called, "Hot Stove University:The Cubs' Contractual Cul-de-Sac". It asked if the Cubs had the worst long-term contract situation ever. The results aren't pretty.

 

(The article is behind the pay wall. I recommend subscribing if you don't already.)

[A New Era]

no thanks.

[Cubswin11]

I don't need an article to put into words of something that I already have nightmares about regularly. Edited January 13, 2010 by Cubswin11

[UMFan83]

This is a great start:

 

While Soriano has not been awful overall, he has hit .275/.328/.508 for the Cubs. As a point of reference, the Marlins’ Cody Ross has been an exact match (.276/.333/.503) over the same stretch. Soriano still certainly has the ability to be a good player, but nobody would give him a deal anywhere close to five years and $90 million at this point.

 

It's funny how against this contract I was when it was handed out in 2006. I hated Soriano as a player and I knew what a big mistake we made when we signed him. That said, I actually feel like I completely underestimated how bad this contract would be at the time, if that makes any sense. I went from thinking it was a horrible contract that will slightly hurt the team long term and be a thorn in our side, to knowing that it's a deal that gigantically hinders the Cubs long term.

 

Seriously, imagine if we don't sign that contract in 06. It's hard to say what would happen. Does Ted Lilly sign with the Cubs? Do we win the Central in 07-08? I don't know but we'd be in a much better situation right now.

 

Ahh who am I kidding, we would have wasted the money on someone else.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The only contract weighing the team down is Soriano. And I guess maybe Silva. This notion that the Cubs are hamstrung by a ton of long term deals ignores the fact that all of them(again, save Soriano) have gotten production equivalent to or better than the salary they've received.

[A New Era]

Carlos Zambrano hasn't nearly performed near his salary. Dempster is way overpaid and so is Fukudome. And pretty much any "veteran" bench player or reliever is also.

 

But most of these contracts are going to be done in the next 1-2 years so I don't see it hurting the Cubs "longtearm". Silva, Demp, Lilly, Fuku, Lee, Ram and more will all be off the books soon. That's alot of money free to (hopefully) spend wisely.

[Sammy Sofa]

Carlos Zambrano hasn't nearly performed near his salary. Dempster is way overpaid and so is Fukudome. And pretty much any "veteran" bench player or reliever is also.

 

Dempster is not, thus far, overpaid at all. If he continues being a capable or better starter over the course of his contract it'll actually be one of the best ones under Hendry's watch.

[Backtobanks]

Carlos Zambrano hasn't nearly performed near his salary. Dempster is way overpaid and so is Fukudome. And pretty much any "veteran" bench player or reliever is also.

 

But most of these contracts are going to be done in the next 1-2 years so I don't see it hurting the Cubs "longtearm". Silva, Demp, Lilly, Fuku, Lee, Ram and more will all be off the books soon. That's alot of money free to (hopefully) spend wisely.

 

Most of the players making $10 million or more on any team are overpaid. Any pitcher that wins 10-12 games or hitter that bats .275 with 25 HRs is looking for a contract that pays more than $10 million over 3-4 years.

[Soul]

I'm not going to subscribe, but it's kind of silly to throw around notions that the Cubs are in the worst situation "ever" for an organization.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not going to subscribe, but it's kind of silly to throw around notions that the Cubs are in the worst situation "ever" for an organization.

 

I kind of agree, but they do have an extraordinary percentage of their expected payroll already locked up for 2-3 seasons from now.

[jyoung55]

I'm not going to subscribe, but it's kind of silly to throw around notions that the Cubs are in the worst situation "ever" for an organization.

 

This guy is either ignoring the Mets from a few years back or he's Steve Phillips trying to save himself. Schmuck would be an appropriate pen name.

[Guancous]

The Yankees were in gruesome shape as recently as two years ago. The point stands that we have almost $125 million tied up for 9 players in 2011. They're not for elite players. It can be argued that all of them are past their peak. The author really factored in the no-trade clauses. The article's focus was looking forward instead of investigating the current hole.

 

Regardless of circumstance, picking up Carlos Silva at his discounted contract would be like FOX signing Jay Leno for a daily 9 PM show.

[CubColtPacer]

The Yankees were in gruesome shape as recently as two years ago. The point stands that we have almost $125 million tied up for 9 players in 2011. They're not for elite players. It can be argued that all of them are past their peak. The author really factored in the no-trade clauses. The article's focus was looking forward instead of investigating the current hole.

 

Regardless of circumstance, picking up Carlos Silva at his discounted contract would be like FOX signing Jay Leno for a daily 9 PM show.

 

I don't have access to the article but the Cubs payroll obligations for their already signed players is around 100 million in 2011 (that includes Ramirez coming back on the player option). I'm not sure where they are getting the almost 125 million unless they are doing something really strange with signing bonuses. That's still poor but a huge difference when talking about a payroll of 140 million overall.

 

The Cubs don't really have many contracts where the player is well overpaid. Their problem is that they have a couple badly overpaid, a bunch of guys who are making about what they should, and simply not enough discounts on their roster (either cheap free agents or young players). They've been so risk averse because of the endless pressure to make the team perfect to win that year. The whole point of discounted players is that they have risk and the Cubs have caved and paid for safe production over and over again.

If they let the current core ride for the next two years, they really aren't in that horrible of shape. The current team has a chance with hitting the right breaks to compete during that time frame. And the rebuilding with a new core can happen gradually during that time. The Cubs are starting to have the farm system that can help with that and they just don't have many contract anchors that will really destroy the process.

 

Now if the Cubs go out and sign several of their players whose contracts are coming up in the next year or two (Lilly, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome) to more big deals, then they will be in serious trouble. But all those players are reasonable bets to be good to great over the course of their current contracts.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Yankees were in gruesome shape as recently as two years ago.

 

No they weren't.

[Guancous]

The Yankees were in gruesome shape as recently as two years ago. The point stands that we have almost $125 million tied up for 9 players in 2011. They're not for elite players. It can be argued that all of them are past their peak. The author really factored in the no-trade clauses. The article's focus was looking forward instead of investigating the current hole.

 

Regardless of circumstance, picking up Carlos Silva at his discounted contract would be like FOX signing Jay Leno for a daily 9 PM show.

 

I don't have access to the article but the Cubs payroll obligations for their already signed players is around 100 million in 2011 (that includes Ramirez coming back on the player option). I'm not sure where they are getting the almost 125 million unless they are doing something really strange with signing bonuses. That's still poor but a huge difference when talking about a payroll of 140 million overall.

 

The $125 million was for 2010. Here are some direct quotes from the article:

 

Entering 2010, the Cubs have more than $125 million committed to just 11 players, including eight earning more than $10 million. That leaves a team that opened 2009 with a club-record payroll of $137 million almost already there again with 14 contracts still left to fulfill, nine of which could get locked up in the arbitration process. The $125 million figure doesn't lead baseball, as the Yankees and Red Sox surpass it, but what makes situation so uniquely bad is that many of the contracts are for underperforming players, with Hendry' propensity for handing out no-trade clauses like they were lollipops further constraining future personnel decisions, including at the July 31 non-waiver trading deadline should the Cubs contend.

This isn't the say all is lost, even though just Lee and Lilly come off the books at the end of this season, still leaving the Cubs committed for more than $100 million for just nine players [in 2010].

[Sammy Sofa]

And then even more comes off the books. Once you get past the next two season a really big chunk of the payrill will be gone. It's not like the Cubs are trapped in a hell of huge, terrible contracts for the long term. Once you get past the next two years it's basically just Soriano.

[jersey cubs fan]

And then even more comes off the books. Once you get past the next two season a really big chunk of the payrill will be gone. It's not like the Cubs are trapped in a hell of huge, terrible contracts for the long term. Once you get past the next two years it's basically just Soriano.

 

And Dempster and Zambrano, and Byrd. Still a fairly significant amount.

 

The problem is they have guys signed longterm, but not their best players. Ramirez and Lee are going to be gone or have big deals of their own.

 

It's not an inescapable hell, but it's a really big problem, that is going to take work to avoid.

[Sammy Sofa]

And then even more comes off the books. Once you get past the next two season a really big chunk of the payrill will be gone. It's not like the Cubs are trapped in a hell of huge, terrible contracts for the long term. Once you get past the next two years it's basically just Soriano.

 

And Dempster and Zambrano, and Byrd. Still a fairly significant amount.

 

True, but that's why I said "huge, terrible contracts." Really, out of everyone I think only Soriano's contract qualifies for such description. Zambrnao is definitely overpaid as it stands right now, but personally I don't think to the degree of Soriano.

 

I agree it'll take some effort to work around, but I don't agree with articles like the one this thread is about that paint it as being such a doom and gloom scenario. The key is who going to be replacing Hendry after (hopefully) next season and how Ricketts approaches the payroll.

[jersey cubs fan]

True, but that's why I said "huge, terrible contracts."

 

They don't have to individually be huge terrible contracts to put the team in a tight spot. You add Soriano, Zambrano and Dempster together and that is a really large amount of money to have guaranteed for three seasons from now to just three guys, none of them stars, and all of them questionable in their own way.

 

People have brought up the Yankees, but that is a team that can literally fit any contract, and they have stars under longterm deals, and have constantly had a ton of cashing coming off the books to make acquisitions possible. There's really no point in comparing the two. The Cubs operate in a budget, a higher budget than most, but still a budget. They have to make choices on guys, and they have too much money tied into too few guys for too long. Somebody can make it work, but for a team that has a distinct financial advantage over the competition, this seriously erodes that advantage. If they spend $30m more than the next guy, and have $50m tied up in Soriano, Dempster and Zambrano for 2012, and get something short of really good performance out of them, that is going to hurt regardless of how creative the next guy is.

 

This team has averaged just 88 wins the past three years with those guys in key roles. You are going to have to spend a lot of money in the next couple years just to maintain the level of skill, let alone get better, which should be the goal.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey, them's the breaks of baseball. Even the best GM is going to have contracts where they have more money invested than what is ideal. I'm not saying Hendry gets a pass but it's tremendously unlikely that whoever replaces him isn't going to have to deal with the same situation in the future. It's very unlikely that this, or any other team without an effectively unlimited payroll like the Yankees, won't see some variation of what you're talking about with Dempster and Zambrano repeated over and over and over again.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hey, them's the breaks of baseball. Even the best GM is going to have contracts where they have more money invested than what is ideal. I'm not saying Hendry gets a pass but it's tremendously unlikely that whoever replaces him isn't going to have to deal with the same situation in the future. It's very unlikely that this, or any other team without an effectively unlimited payroll like the Yankees, won't see some variation of what you're talking about with Dempster and Zambrano repeated over and over and over again.

 

But the point is the Cubs have it worse than most in regards to this issue.

[Sammy Sofa]

My point is that it's likely that there's always going to be contracts like Dempster's and Zambrano's hanging around. The obviously bad stuff like Soriano's is one thing, but I'd be stunned if a team somehow managed to not have a couple or more arguably overpriced contracts hanging around.

[jersey cubs fan]

My point is that it's likely that there's always going to be contracts like Dempster's and Zambrano's hanging around. The obviously bad stuff like Soriano's is one thing, but I'd be stunned if a team somehow managed to not have a couple or more arguably overpriced contracts hanging around.

 

Yes, this is true, but it doesn't negate the point that the Cubs are in a worse situation because they have huge terrible contract and some really big not terrible but not good contracts and some small but bothersome contracts and they aren't that good to begin with and they have exactly zero impact young cheap players.

[Sammy Sofa]

For now. Yeah, it looks relatively crappy for the next couple of years. My other point is that the melodrama of the article seems to be a reach. It's not like this is a situation they're indefinitely locked into. Ricketts' actions so far in dealing with the financial aspect of buying the Cubs has struck me as being really smart and the efforts of someone who isn't going to tolerate the halfassed sloppy spending that the Cubs have engaged in under Hendry.

[davearm2]

For a big-market team like the Cubs, it's smarter to spend $120M on 10, $10-$14M guys than $120M on 20, $5-7M guys. $10M+ buys you guys that are truly impactful. You don't see a lot of impact FAs making salaries in the $5-7M range.

 

Ask yourself this: would you trade Aramis Ramirez for one DeRosa type and one Marquis type? I hope not.

 

Now we can surely argue about whether the Cubs have invested in the right big-ticket guys, but the general blueprint is correct: very top-heavy, a few guys making midrange money, and the rest at or below $1M.