CubFanPhilly

UPDATED 11/18: *Assumes modest raises for pre-arb. players and pro-rates signing bonuses. The Tribune stated 2007 payroll was $120 mil. This comes within $2 mil. under these same assumptions. Media has reported 2009 payroll to be around $140 mil. (with one report as high as $150 mil.). Under Contract C - Soto $0.5M 1B - Lee $13.0M (NTC) 2B - DeRosa $5.5M (FA in 2010) SS - Theriot $0.5M (2 MiL options) 3B - Ramirez $16.65M (NTC thru 2010, 10/5 rights after, player option 2011, club option 2012) LF - Soriano $17.0M (NTC) CF - Pie $0.45M (no MiL options) RF - Fukudome $12.5M (limited NTC) IF - Fontenot $0.45M (1 MiL option) IF - Cedeno $0.45M (no MiL options) 1B/OF - Hoffpauir $0.45M (2 MiL options) S - Zambrano $18.75 (NTC) S - Harden $7.0M (team option exercised, FA in 2010) S - Dempster $9.0M (player option 2012) S - Lilly $13.0M (limited NTC) S - Marquis $9.88M (FA 2010) BP - Marshall $0.45M (1 MiL option) BP - Marmol $0.5M (1 MiL option) BP - Samardzija $2.4M (NTC, club options 2012, 2013) BP - Guzman $0.45M (1 MiL option) Buy-outs - $0.3 (Blanco) COMMITTED: $129.18 (11 position players, 5 starters, 4 bullpen) Arbitration Eligible CF - Johnson (2007 $1.3M/Signed with Toronto for $3.28M before his release) BP/S - Gaudin (2007 $1.78M) (no MiLoptions) BP - Gregg (2007 $2.5M) BP - Cotts (2007 $0.8M) (no MiL options) BP - Wuertz (2007 $0.86M) (no MiL options) Free Agents BP - Wood (2007 $3.90M w/incentives) BP - Howry (2007 $4.5M) BP - C. Fox BP - Lieber CF - Edmonds (2007 $8.0M with SD paying $5.7M and STL paying $2.0M) 1B/OF - Ward (2007 $1.20M) C - Blanco ($3.0 club option declined/$0.3M buyout) Others on the 40-Man (est. salaries if optioned to 25-Man) S - R. Hill $0.55 (no MiL options, $0.48 in 2008) S/BP - Hart $0.4 (2 MiL options) S/BP - Wells $0.4 (3 MiL options) BP - Ascanio $0.4 (1 MiL option) C - K. Hill $0.55 (no MiL options, $0.48 in 2008) OF/1B/C? - J. Fox (1 MiL option) OF - Fuld (2 MiL options) OF - Snyder (no MiL options) (32 players on the current 40-man)

I can understand how MLB wouldn't want Zell running the Tribune while owning an interest in the White Sox, but right now Zell doesn't own even a single share of the Tribune or the Cubs. He holds an option (warrants) to buy 40 percent of the Tribune. Zell controls both the Tribune and the Cubs. The rest is just legal technicalities. That said, Zell and MLB will do as they please just like they've always done. I agree. But if MLB's looking for a loop hole to allow the status quo - there you have it.

I can understand how MLB wouldn't want Zell running the Tribune while owning an interest in the White Sox, but right now Zell doesn't own even a single share of the Tribune or the Cubs. He holds an option (warrants) to buy 40 percent of the Tribune.

Well, I'm glad we got that straight. Any other untouchables besides Soto and those with NTCs? I'd hate to waste bandwidth.

Samardzija, Marshall, Gaudin, Pie & Theriot/Cedeno could be an interesting proposal for Peavy & Greene. Assuming the Cubs either re-signed Wood or picked up a couple of relievers in FA, and assuming they are unable to dump Marquis, the payroll would be around $140 mil. Middle relief would be thin (Cotts, Wuertz, Guzman, Ascanio, Hart, et. al.). Obviously, Dempster would be gone and the offense would be only marginally upgraded, but it'd be a hell of a rotation. The big concern I'd have is the $140+ mil. that the Cubs would have committed to 2010 (before signing Harden and with few obvious candidates remaining for 5th starter).

Given his willingness to use his NTC and his apparent desire to stay out west, he's not very realistic at all. According to Cot's his full NTC expired after 2006. He can only block trades to eight teams: Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Florida, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Washington. I suppose he could threaten to retire, but I'd be surprised if he would. I think he has 10-5 status now. He does. 2008 was his 5th full season with the Padres. Wow. I was thinking it was 3 or 4.

Given his willingness to use his NTC and his apparent desire to stay out west, he's not very realistic at all. According to Cot's his full NTC expired after 2006. He can only block trades to eight teams: Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Florida, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Washington. I suppose he could threaten to retire, but I'd be surprised if he would.

Brian Giles is the most realistic. The Cubs need a LH bat without a big multi-year contract. I'd try to get Greene in the same package. Start with Pie and some combination of Samardzija, Theriot/Cedeno, and Hill. Platoon Fukudome/Johnson in CF. Landing both would mean not signing at least one of Wood or Dempster.

*Assumes modest raises for pre-arb. players and pro-rates signing bonuses (the Trib's 2007 payroll of $120 mil. comes within $2 mil. under the same assumption). Under contract C - Soto $0.5M 1B - Lee $13.0M (NTC) 2B - DeRosa $5.5M SS - Theriot $0.5M 3B - Ramirez $16.65M (NTC thru 2010) LF - Soriano $17.0M (NTC) CF - Pie $0.45M RF - Fukudome $12.5M (limited NTC) IF - Fontenot $0.45M IF - Cedeno $0.45M 1B/OF - Hoffpauir $0.45M S - Zambrano $18.75 (NTC) S - Harden $7.0M (team option exercised) S - Lilly $13.0M (limited NTC) S - Marquis $9.88M S/BP - Marshall $0.45M BP - Marmol $0.50M BP - Samardzija $2.4M BP - Guzman $0.45M COMMITTED: $119.88 (11 position players, 5 starters, 3 bullpen) Arbitration Eligible CF - Johnson (2007 $1.3M/Signed with Toronto for $3.28M before his release) BP/S - Gaudin (2007 $1.78M) BP - Cotts (2007 $0.8M) BP - Wuertz (2007 $0.86M) Team Option C - Blanco $3.0M ($0.3M buyout) Free Agents BP - Wood (2007 $3.90M w/incentives) BP - Howry (2007 $4.5M) S - Dempster (2007 $5.83M) CF - Edmonds (2007 $8.0M with SD paying $5.7M and STL paying $2.0M) 1B/OF - Ward (2007 $1.20M)

I'm pretty close to Raisin's numbers. $120.9 mil. before doing anything with Dempster, Wood, Guadin (arb.), Blanco ($.3 buyout), Johnson (arb.), or Edmonds. If the reports of a $140 mil. payroll are true, that leaves ~$19 mil. to fill: starter, closer, backup catcher, middle reliever, and another LH bat. If you can move Marquis and some of his '09 pay, you might have $23-$26 mil. to work with - not much room.

A rennovated/rebuilt Wrigley (don't touch the bleachers or scoreboard, same general architecture, rennovate the EL stop, and add a large parking structure within walking distance). 40

He's got two more years at $13 mil./year. Even an .800 OPS won't hurt too much in a platoon with Hoffpauir. Micah Hoffpauir is not a major league hitter. He's looked good enough over the last two seasons to be an adequate half of a productive platoon.

He's got two more years at $13 mil./year. Even an .800 OPS won't hurt too much in a platoon with Hoffpauir.

A nice analysis Craig. I think Marquis is moved early in the offseason and No. 2 is the motive. I think Marquis can be moved if the Cubs pick up $3-5 mil. That frees up $5-7 mil. for re-signing some combination of Johnson, Edmonds, and Blanco (with Johnson and Blanco being the most likely choices). Other scenarios: 1. Some combination of Pie/Hill/Veal traded for a RF, moving Fukudome to CF with Johnson re-signed as the 4th OF and Derosa & Hoffpauir filling the role of 5th OF. 2. Pie traded for a LH CF to platoon with Johnson. 3. A Pie/Johnson platoon with a plan for a mid-season acquisition of a corner OF or CF if Pie fails.

Silva's deal was 4/$48 mil. with a $12 mil. option for a 5th year. He might be offered that, but I don't think it's certain either. He'll be 32 next May. He's coming off one excellent year as a starter, three years as an average closer, and otherwise average career as an MLB pitcher. I can see Dempster accepting a smaller deal with the Cubs. 3 years $33-36 mil. and a club option that would take it to 4/$45 mil will a small buy out. That's a richer deal than Lilly got and imo enough to sooth the pride factor. There are a lot of qualitative factors that go into the decision and I think most of these factors favor the Cubs: -probability of richer offers from other clubs ---- -financial security (Demp's career earnings are ~$23 mil.) --- -peer/MLBPA pressure to sign the biggest possible contract - -comfortable situation: "clubhouse chemistry", relationship with coaches, manager & GM +++++++ -opportunity to win +++++ -location (as far as I know Demp has no significant connection to Chicago) + -loyalty to the organization (the Cubs signed him to a rehab deal) ++ -fan base ++ What these other factors mean to the player is all speculation but if I had to rate the chances: "10" - Andre Dawson/will sign a blank contract to play for the Cubs "0" - Hired gun/desperately wants out of town I'd put Dempster at 6.5 (3 yrs ~$33-$34 mil. with a club option for a fourth year) Wood (32 in June): -probability of richer offers --- -financial security (career earnings are ~$55 mil.) - -peer/MLBPA pressure -- -comfortable situation +++ -opportunity to win +++++++ -location ++++++++ -loyalty to the organization (I think he feels more or less square with the club after his disasterous contract) ++ -fan base ++++ I'd put Wood at: 8 (2 years/~$12-$15 mil.) CFP

I love this. The guy obviously really likes being a Cub, working with these guys. How much is it going to cost us to keep him again? I'm not so sure this is a fluke season for him. He's been a good starter before this with Florida. I'd think very long and hard before letting him go. We'll see how much he likes being a Cub when they offer 8 schillings and the Yanks 13M a year. If the Cubs offer 10M and the Yankees offer 13M I think he's a Cub next year. If the difference is much more than that I'm skeptical.

Unless the Cubs actually win it all it seems pretty unlikely that they come back next year with essentially the same team except Pie replacing Edmonds as the LH platoon with Johnson in CF. Pie is going to be hard pressed to match the production that Edmonds has given so far so it would mean they go into 2009 with a less potent offense than they have right now. I would think that Hendry will get more creative than this and mix it up to try to upgrade the team if they do wind up falling short. I think the ownership situation and the backloading that Hendry's done will force the status quo. There just isn't room for another big contract unless: a) they let Dempster and/or Wood walk (but those moves leave holes to fill); b) they move a contract or two (Marquis, Lee, Fukudome, or Lilly); or c) new ownership approves a big payroll increase. A trade with Pie, Theriot, and/or Hill as the centerpiece seems the most likely route to an upgrade. Ownership should be settled in plenty of time for a mid season acquisition or two.

My guess: position players: soriano (lf) fukudome (rf) johnson (cf) pie (cf) lee (1b) derosa (2b) ramirez (3b) fontenot (if) cedeno (if) theriot (ss) soto © F/A or K Hill © hoffpauir (1b/of) pitchers: zambrano (sp) lilly (sp) harden (sp) dempster (sp) ~$33 mil./3 yrs marshall/hill/samardzija/gaudin (sp) gaudin (rp?) marmol (rp) samardzija (rp?) guzman (p) wuertz/ascanio (rp) cotts (rp) wood (rp) ~$14 mil./2 yrs

If I had Glavine's velocity I wouldn't throw strikes either.

This will not end well for Glavine.

It depends on how much debt a buyer takes on to match or beat Cuban. How much risk would there be? Is attendence going to drop 10-15%? I doubt it. That's how much it'd have to drop before freezing payroll is a bad economic decision (in the short run). Assume a buyer plans to run the team at least cashflow neutral. A buyer with cash could increase payroll $25-35 mil. A buyer financing 25% of the transaction would have to freeze payroll to do it. Even if they merely keep payroll the same as 2008, you're looking at losing Dempster and Wood. I doubt they'd freeze payroll, but I'd rather have Wood and Dempster signed than Edmonds (unless he's willing to take a <$3 mil. 1-year deal

Pie/Johnson next season. Hoffpauir replaces Ward. Pie should get the majority of time to the trade deadline. If he's struggling and there's no suitable replacement, you address the problem then. Unless new ownership is in place and payroll is bumped significantly, there is a serious crunch this off season.

An analogy: You own a sucessful car dealership and you sell it to a Trust established on behalf of employees (an ESOP). You use the dealership's assets to leverage the Company to finance the transaction. The dealership struggles to make its debt payments. Now a year later a buyer offers 20% more than what the Trust paid for the dealership. However, the Company has a franchise agreement that states General Motors must approve the sale. GM doesn't like the buyer and rejects the sale, but lines up a buyer who pays 30% less. Who has a cause of action? -The shareholder (the Trust), because there's obvious financial harm. -The Company's creditors. -The employees (the beneficiaries of the Trust) Against whom? -The Board? Not likely, because entering into the franchise agreement was a reasonable and prudent action and they accepted the highest offer. -General Motors? Perhaps if the rejection of the buyer was not for a legitimate reason or the franchise agreement is deemed to be unenforceable. -The Trustee? Perhaps, if they sit on their hands and accept the lower bid. The existence of the franchise agreement makes it a difficult argument, but it doesn't negate the right to sue. Even if the franchise agreement stated that the Company couldn't sue GM, it's not the party bringing the suit. But set all of that aside, because it's not what really matters. What really matters is that the Cubs are owned by the Tribune, which is in turn owned by its employees. Let's say Cuban offers $1.4 billion for the Cubs, and that's $300 mil. more than the next highest bidder. The Tribune accepts the offer, but the owners reject Cuban. MLB has just hosed the employees of the Tribune Company out of $300 mil. in retirement savings. Worse yet, what if the Tribune can't meet its debt obligations and eventually files for bankruptcy? Can you imagine the negative press? btw- RIC, I know the Trustee and two of the attorneys who worked on the Tribune buyout. The Trustee is a bulldog, and I would not be surprised to see the Trust file suit (particularly if details of a rejected bid are leaked to the press).

The shareholder of the Tribune (the Trust established on behalf of the employees) can sue. The Trustee would be under considerable pressure to do just that. Not to mention that it would be a PR disaster for MLB to reject the highest bid when the survival of the Tribune Company and the retirement savings of its employees are on the line.

No, you should use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. That may not always be the 9th, but its not always NOT going to be the 9th. Borowski was a terrible choice in Cleveland because while he was about their fourth best arm there was a big difference between him and the better guys in their pen. You don't want to be throwing crap out there in the 9th in save situations because a lot of the time those are going to be high leverage (not always, but usually). If you have to name a closer, don't make it your best guy, but don't make it one of your worst. And thats what Borowski was in Cleveland. I don't disagree. The mistake Cleveland made last year was using him in almost every save situation. Yes, use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situations. One run lead in the 9th? I'd be using one of those better arms. But not all save situations are high leverage either. 3-run lead? I'd be comfortable with a guy like Boroswki. Look at Boroswki's stint with the Cubs. He was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best arm in the Cubs bullpen and plenty effective as a closer. If you have to name a closer at all, be smart about it. It should be de facto closer by committee.