I have never professed to be an expert in baseball financial matters. But there is a clue in Jeff Passan's arbitration roundup at Yahoo that may give some insight into why the Cubs didn't offer arbitration to Kerry Wood (or, for that matter, to any of their other compensation-eligible free agents):
OK, so Arizona doesn’t want to get stuck with Adam Dunn next season at the $15 million or so he’d get through arbitration. Fine. It’s a short-sighted maneuver not to offer arbitration – he’s bound to get a multi-year deal somewhere – but with the Diamondbacks offering arbitration to Orlando Hudson, Juan Cruz and Brandon Lyon, one scouting director wondered whether it was to avoid a glut of draft choices and the signing bonuses that accompany them.
While two sources dismissed the idea, one pointed out that with Dunn, Hudson and Cruz all Type A players likely to sign elsewhere, it would have left the Diamondbacks with seven high picks, including their own first-rounder, and eight if Lyon doesn’t accept arbitration. According to Baseball America, Arizona spent only $4.49 million on its draft choices last season, the seventh-lowest number in the game.
Now, you'll remember that the Cubs were fined $500,000 last summer for some shenanigans regarding signing certain players above slot recommendations and not reporting those signings on a timely basis. Based on that, perhaps the paradoxical idea that the Cubs wouldn't want the extra draft picks because of the extra money they might cost actually makes some sense. On the other hand, none of this means that the Cubs and Kerry Wood might not still come to agreement on a one year-deal, especially since in the present market, that multi-year contract Jim Hendry told Wood to go out and get might not exist.
We are living in a very different economy, as Passan points out:
Now, though, with advertising reps reporting back to their bosses that sales are hard to come by and teams cringing at the notion of fans’ disposable income shriveling like a raisin, arbitration is a risk. In the process, the team and player either come to an agreed-upon salary – usually more than the previous season – or each side picks a number and allows an impartial arbitrator to choose the player’s salary.
So the idea that the Cubs may want to pare any further payroll increases down -- including the possibility that Jake Peavy's deal isn't affordable financially, never mind the players that might have to be given up -- has less to do with who becomes the new owner of the team and more to do with the shrinking number of advertising dollars that may be coming in for the 2009 season. It's the first week of December, the time when season ticket invoices usually arrive for those of us who have season tickets. We've seen nothing yet, nor any hint (beyond an offhand comment from Jim Hendry on the Score last week that some prices may go up while most stay the same) of what ticket prices will be in 2009.
This isn't just a Cub issue, either. Here's a list of all the free agents this offseason. Only three of them have signed so far: Ryan Dempster re-upped with the Cubs for about market rate; Doug Brocail stayed with his old team, the Astros, also for a reasonable deal; and Jeremy Affeldt, the only one so far to change teams, signed with the Giants for a fairly "modest" $8 million for two years. And of 60 Type A or B free agents, fewer than half -- only 24 -- were offered arbitration. We may all have to adjust our thinking about what the Cubs -- or ANY team -- can and will afford to acquire, either by trade or free agency, this offseason. As Passan points out:[Bobby] Abreu, for example, made $16 million last season. Though his numbers have declined, he would stand to make about $17 million through arbitration. And while that was a fair amount in the past, even New York couldn’t stomach it this year.
The Yankees scrimping. This really is a recession.
Finally, the Biz of Baseball site posted yesterday the breakdown of postseason shares by team. Here's what the Cubs got and handed out:
Chicago Cubs (Share of Players’ Pool: $1,534,779.83; value of each full share: $25,032.89) – The Cubs awarded 50 full shares, 11.03 partial shares and five cash awards.
The shares are usually voted on by the players themselves. I'm guessing the partial shares went to players like Matt Murton and Sean Gallagher who were traded, or guys like Kevin Hart and Neal Cotts, who spent part of the year in the minors.
Let's hope they have larger shares -- like the $351.504.48 per full share that the champion Phillies gave out -- to distribute in 2009.
0 recs | 72 comments
The Yankees...........
………..may not be strapped, per se, but instead are looking to have enough cash on hand to lure Sabathia to the Bronx.
tville - December 3, 2008
I wonder.
That offer was pretty generous. I wonder why Sabathia’s waiting. It’s not going to get any bigger.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
Maybe he's considering other things besides money?
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
like a Cheeseburger?
digitalbenjamin - December 3, 2008
No, like whether he'd rather play in California.
The thing is, there don’t seem to be any offers by teams out there.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
In-N-Out
is in Cali.
Rudey - December 3, 2008
God I love In-N-Out Burger...
and I miss it so. Stupid East Coast.
CubsWin!Oregon - December 3, 2008
There are a couple
of Inn-N-Out Burger locations that are close to Hohokam Park.
http://www.in-n-out.com/
I’m just sayin’…
azjazzman - December 4, 2008
I thought the Angels were getting ready to make a bid
and supposedly the Giants too. They both probably won’t be as much as Yankees, but could be close. And seriously, after the first 100M, does it really matter? Yeah, I know it matters to the players association, but there are times when somebody needs to give the MLBPA a mental enema – this is probably one of them.
btw, I know CC likes to hit, but I’d be hardpressed to pick the Giants over the Angels, just by looking at the organizations as a whole.
ballhawk - December 3, 2008
As a whole, yes,
but CC is from Oakland, which might help the Giants’ case. Also, a rotation of Sabathia, Lincecum and Cain isn’t a bad way to start…
Bill Potter - December 3, 2008
Also, remember the offer the Angels made to Tori Hunter last year?
That seemed to come out of the blue and whammo, Tori was an Angel.
Some teams don’t broadcast their business in the paper so just because we haven’t read it anywhere doesn’t mean there isn’t interest by any number of teams or offers that have been made.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
EXACTLY!!
This is why the Cubs could be working on deals we know nothing about. Usually, it’s the biggest rumors that never happen (cough Roberts cough).
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
The Yankee offer, if it were to be taken
would be CC’s last big score. He’s 28 now. A 6-yr deal will mean he’s 35 in the first year of the deal afterwards. Too old on the surface for many offers to be relatively large.
Remember what Furcal did in 05/06. He took less overall money from the Dodgers ($39M) for only 3 years than the Cubs ($50M) for 5 years, coincidently at age 28; with the thought he’d have a better chance to score one more big deal at age 31 instead of age 33.
My thinking is CC could be looking for a higher per year average (higher than the Yankees) from a team he’d want to go to (this is important also) but for lesser number of years. With the Giants on the hook for that Alcatraz of a contract in Zito they may not bit but perhaps the Angels could offer CC something like $80 for 3 years…just a different play of the numbers.
blackhawk24 - December 3, 2008
Or maybe the Yanks realize that Nady is a better player now,
and that they also are stuck with Damon and Matsui as COFs.
DeRoMyHero - December 3, 2008
Perhaps to help Kerry?
Apologies if this theory has already been offered, but the management may have withheld arbitration in order to help Kerry get that multi-year contract elsewhere. Offering KW arbitration would effectively raise the cost of signing him, as the signing team would have to sacrifice draft picks. Since the Cubs didn’t offer KW arbitration the signing team no longer has this worry, and thus may be more willing to splurge on him.
Maybe they were really just trying to help the guy?
MikeIowa - December 3, 2008
At the same time...
… Passan’s story, plus what’s happened so far, hint that such a deal might NOT be out there at all.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
That might work out brilliantly for Hendry
If KW is still unsigned on May 1 then Hendry can ride in like a white knight, regretfully tell Kerry that tehy did everything they could to clear the way for a big money contract, then offer him the little one-year deal that he has had in mind all along.
I’m starting to feel like a conspiracy theorist.
MikeIowa - December 3, 2008
I'll wear this particular tinfoil hat along with you.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
The only way I see that scenario happening
is if there indeed is another round of collusion going on with the owners.
Don’t you think some team will offer Woody a guaranteed MLB offer of at least 1 year? Not gettting an offer would be the only reason he would still be available on May 1st and I simply don’t see that happening.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
Can the Cubs sign him before May 1?
I’m unclear on arbitration rules.
elgato - December 3, 2008
Never mind
Just saw Al’s post below.
elgato - December 3, 2008
Woody will be signed before ST
by the Cubs or someone else. The only questions are who? and how much?
May 1st went out with the last CBA.
DeRoMyHero - December 3, 2008
Question
Al you stated:
Does that mean Wood could still end up back in Chicago? I got the impression that by refusing Arbitration, that meant the door was closed on signing Wood for the upcoming season.
digitalbenjamin - December 3, 2008
Those rules changed
The old “have to wait until May 1st” is gone. Cubs can still negotiate.
rlpete - December 3, 2008
Correct.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
If the Cubs had offered Wood arbitration and he declined
Would they have to wait until May 1 to sign him?
gocubsgo22 - December 3, 2008
I don't believe so.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
I know you were speculating
or at least the story writer was, but it is extremely short sighted to not offer arbitration because a sandwich pick is too expensive. I cannot imagine that this was the Cub’s motivation. Or if it was I am very sad. With decisions like this, it may be a while between world series titles. Oh yeah.
gocubsgo22 - December 3, 2008
You're thinking in the past.
I think the economic troubles are hitting the baseball industry hard. It’s not just the Cubs.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
It's Not Collusion
The economy was a lot better back during the winter of 1986-87, when Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Kirk Gibson were free agents. Thank God for Dawson willing to give a blank check to the Cubs. The reasons for the lack of lucrative free agent signings this year are legitimately financial.
memphiscub - December 3, 2008
So what is the rule now?
They didn’t offer arb but they can still negotiate any kind of deal?
blackhawk24 - December 3, 2008
Yes, they can still negotiate.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
the old rules...
… also gave both sides some time to negotiate, I believe. The deadline to offer arbitration may have been Dec 1st (for example) but both sides had another week or so to negotiate, and if a deal was not reached the deadline, they could not sign until May 1st.
dmlichte - December 3, 2008
I didn't realise that the May 1 rule is gone
Now things make a lot more sense. I think that unless there is a big multi-year deal out there, Kerry will be back in Chicago.
Ihatethecards - December 3, 2008
And I don't see that big multiyear deal for him.
Do you?
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
Fortunately for us only K-Rod will get the big deal
and I think Wood will be more productive over the course of K-Rod’s contract w/ the mets
CHCOWNTHECENTRAL - December 3, 2008
It will be interesting to see how the closer market shakes out
as there now seems to be a glut of closers on the free agent market and via trade.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
I agree Al
I don’t see anything better than 3 years, maybe $20 million total.
Ihatethecards - December 3, 2008
Time for a poll?
What will Kerry sign for?
Ihatethecards - December 3, 2008
I hope I'm wrong
But I think he’s gone. I suppose if they get all the other priorities done and still have room in the budget, it’s possible he comes back. I just think that this was a baseball decision, not a monetary one.
Bruce Miles offered an interesting take on it in his blog earlier this week.
Shanghai Badger - December 3, 2008
Economy and spots teams
Outside of the top players I suspect there are going to be a few surprising FA bargains. It wouldn’t surprise me if Dunn gets signed for a smaller deal than most people expected.
The economic problems are impacting sports teams. I saw something the other day that NBA attendance is down but TV viewership is up. People are staying home and watching on TV. Many corporations are cutting ad budgets and other discretionary spending which means no corporate box seats and sky boxes. As Al says, wait until the season ticket invoices go out and teams see the number that are not renewing.
As I said yesterday, I’m sure Hendry is working on a very hard salary cap. People can say it is only $3 or $ 4 million more for Wood but the point is that he can’t spend the extra $3 or $4 million.
I still won’t be surprised if Wood is back. I’m still waiting until the whole picture becomes clear (including what opportunities have been missed) before declaring Hendry the worst GM is baseball history as it appears a few people wanted to do in the past few days.
rlpete - December 3, 2008
I wonder how hard the Tribune Co is hit by the advertising dollars being pulled by many companies.
My guess is really hard as they were already in financial trouble even before the recession started.
That may also be affecting the budget the Cubs have to work with.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
I dont know that $$ was the determining factor in the NYY/Abreu split...
Perhaps theyve wised up and decided not to give a guy his age and declining stats, power numbers anyway, a deal beyond 2-3 years.
bren - December 3, 2008
Yet another rason the Cubs should steer clear of Abreu.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
Agreed
bren - December 3, 2008
There's somethng about Abreu that I simply don't like.
I prefer a player that gives me the impression that he will do whatever it takes to win the game that day. Take Reed Johnson, if winning the game requires him to crash into the way, he will do so. Abreu has shown that he is not willing to do things such as crash into a wall.
The intangible “it” seems to be missing in Abreu. I would prefer the Cubs take a pass on him.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
+1
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
this was a while ago, but I remember reading somewhere
that Abreu made it known he wanted to stay in NY and would gladly accept arbitration. Whether or not he’d actually forgo a multi-year deal to stay in NY for one year is debateable, but it could have been enough for Yankees to forgo the potential for draft picks and not offer arb.
ballhawk - December 3, 2008
"Its the economy stupid"---been there done that----and timing is everything--Andre Dawson
The economy is much more than dollars and sense, it is about projecting the future and anticipating cash flow, asset value and liabilities.
There is a reason why so many teams invested so heavily in the cash rich world of Sky Boxes, because there is so much extra money there. Now if corporate entertainment is being chopped those kind of expenditures will be lost, glad the Cubs they have a smaller investment in this area. I have been there in the early ’80’s, 1991 and following 2001….If it comes down to entertaining a big shot at a ball game for a deal, go out and purchase a few tickets instead of having to fill a sky box all summer.
Let’s face it a lot of the broadcast rights in MLB is a loose world of local market which is driven by the car industry—-national ads and dealers. The auto industry is going into a Depression and eventual transformation through shrinkage (remember George in Seinfeld), “yes Jerry tell them there is shrinkage when you go into cold water”.
All this drills down to spending on talent.
Here is my take: It appears almost everyone is selling…..kind of like the financial markets, when there are no buyers the market falls looking to find the bottom, where there is a perception of bargains. This is why we like rummage sales, that is the bottom of the market for used stuff. With only three FA’s signed baseball will go rummaging.
My guess is this, the reason why Hendry said he was going to wait for the Winter Meetings he wanted to access a dynamic rapidly changing financial market. If other teams are standing pat or seeking to sell their talent than you too can afford to stand pat and wait for bargains.
So it might be that Pie/RJ Johnson are bargains right now. It might be that the Cubs have the best rotation right now and that little worry about having to improve it since teams will be shedding and why Marmol, Guzman, Ascanio, Cotts, Samardz, Marshall are more valuable right now than Wood or Fuentes.
My guess is that February will be an active time for FA and trades….by then teams will know how the cash flow will be and how much they have to shed. That brings me to Andre Dawson, remember his situation in 1988 when no one wanted him? Think about Furcal looking in from the fence and willing to sign for one year at a bargain.
Think about the Cubs then engineering a trades because of that—-timing is everything, especially in a rapidly changing market.
Ivy Walls - December 3, 2008
Speaking of skyboxes...
… that’s where teams make their biggest dollars. If corporate people are cancelling skyboxes, teams will be hurting.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
this will effect the new stadium more---especially the New York's
Houston’s, Giants, Seattle, Cardinals, Detroit’s, Phillies, Baltimore’s, D-Backs and Rox as they are new stadium clubs who vested heavily in their cash flow with this micro market.
Sky Box’s have a country club member finance package: Annual box license, minimum food/beverage charge, season ticket group sales and often other memberships like to another club, parking fees they are million to multi-million dollar packages. Then there are add-on’s where above the minimum food/beverage stuff comes additional premium stuff and when you are entertaining guests can be demanding placing souvenirs on the tab et cetera et cetera.
Another sign will be the CBOE seats the Cubs came up with last year. Then the in house scalping program.
Ivy Walls - December 3, 2008
Rec'd
Very well summarized. This off-season may be unlike any we’ve seen before. Teams that give themselves the most flexibility may come out ahead.
rlpete - December 3, 2008
Furcal
I think the demand is high enough for a couple players, such as Furcal, that the Cubs may not find players like that just falling into their laps. Teams like SanFran and Oakland are realizing how open their divisions are and they saw how the Cubs invested money and won some division titles. I doubt Furcal is coming to the Cubs, and certainly not for cheap, though I hope I am wrong.
dr stabbingworth - December 3, 2008
Hopefully Furcal realizes
that we will likely be more competitive but I’m sure he still won’t be a bargain. I hope Hendry is willing to spend aa few dollars on a legit leadoff/SS
CHCOWNTHECENTRAL - December 3, 2008
It doesn't sound like that's the priority.
I get the impression the top offensive priority is a power hitting left handed hitter. It sounds like Furcal is out of the Cubs price range.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
For some reason, they love the Riot at SS
I think a switch to his natural position would fix everything. I’m getting pretty tired of the “Lou demands this, Lou demands that” crap.
dr stabbingworth - December 3, 2008
They only have to pay the Riot the minimum.
That is definitely attractive to most teams.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
There are two reasons why the Cubs won't move the Riot to 2B:
1. Mark DeRosa. DeRo is a better player in every category — including baserunning. No way will the Cubs bench DeRo to move Riot to 2B.
2. Riot’s bat would be more exposed at 2B. Teams expect more offense from their 2B than from their SS. A 93 OPS+ in a “good” year won’t cut it at 2B. If he can’t stick at SS, he isn’t an everyday player. Since Lou wants him to play every day, he has to play SS.
DeRoMyHero - December 3, 2008
I don't know if I agree with that second point...
Looking at who I consider the top 2B (Utley, Uggla, Kinsler, Phillips, Roberts, DeRo, Pedroia) vs the top SS (Hanley, Reyes, Pheralta, Rollins, Tejada) the numbers seem to be pretty even…I don’t know how you can say teams “expect more offense from their 2B.”
PurpleLineToWrigley - December 3, 2008
Still waiting for "Lou demands we win one playoff game"....
santoswoodenlegs - December 3, 2008
Does that mean no more Bob Rohrman ads? ‘Cause I love that guy’s ads….
I don’t see broadcasting revenue dropping much. People will still watch baseball; the market share won’t drop much, so advertising revenue won’t drop much. Somebody else will come in and buy the time the car dealers and manufacturers aren’t. And Chevy will still sponsor the Cubs and be the cars that everybody but Pat drives. (What does Pat drive? A Ford? A Toyota? A Studebaker?)
And since MLB kept all the internet revenue for themselves (which is why you can’t stream a Cubs game on WGN’s website), even if fewer people subscribe to their service, the teams won’t see a hit (unless it happens after the season during the distribution of MLB’s excess cash inflow).
At this point, I just don’t see the clubs — at least not the big clubs — taking a hit in the broadcast revenues portion of the budget. (Al, if you have some sweet insider info or opinion about this issue, I’d be very interested in hearing it.)
znohitter - December 3, 2008
I don't have any insider info, but...
… like every other business, MLB’s “extras” may take a hit. It’s possible that there will be fewer EI subscribers or MLB.TV subscribers in 2009, unless the powers that be realize this and cut the price.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
High Time to Lift Blackout Restrictions?
If MLB is trying to retain EI subscriptions, it would behoove them to lift the blackout restrictions. That’s not going to happen for next season.
memphiscub - December 3, 2008
Don't forget about the mess the financial industry is in.
Banks are big sponsors of teams. Both National City and WaMu were sponsors of the Cubs ahave been acquired by other banks in the offseason.
cowsarecool220 - December 3, 2008
I don't think it would happen
but it would certainly be weird to see Ryne Sandberg doing ads for PNC Bank (which bought National City), since PNC owns the naming rights to PNC Park in Pittsburgh.
However, I am thankful to not hear those “WaMu, woo-hoo!” ads on the PA at Wrigley anymore.
Bill Potter - December 3, 2008
It was high time to lift blackout restrictions in about 1990.
It’s virtually impossible to get a baseball game on a major network here in Des Moines. I just know I won’t be getting ANY video service of MLB’s until the “local viewing areas” get trimmed down to a reasonable size (like the 50 mile radio areas).
znohitter - December 3, 2008
Rec'd
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
I agree on the arb portion...
…as it relates to Dunn. The snakes didn’t want to be on the hook for $15M if they lost their arb hearing. Likewise, the Cubs didn’t want to be on the hook for say $10M if they lost a Woody arb hearing. They didn’t even want it to get that far and Hendry said all the right things in allowing Woody to hunt for the better deal elsewhere.
The draft pick thing is ludicrous. Many times I’ve thought this author took one too many hits on the pipe, and this is another example. Teams would absolutely love to have a great-potential kid fall in their laps. And deliberately not offering arb just because of getting extra pick(s) is just plain stupid. Even if a team thinks they didn’t want to sign a “sure-thing” pick, they could use that as leverage in a trade with another team that did want the “sure-thing” pick.
blackhawk24 - December 3, 2008
Not so fast
A few years ago, the Giants signed free agents before the arbitration decision to intentionally lose their high draft picks.
rlpete - December 3, 2008
that doesn't make sense
elaborate please…
blackhawk24 - December 3, 2008
See discussion here...
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askba04nov.html
It says: “San Francisco signed Michael Tucker before the deadline to offer arbitration last year—if teams don’t offer arbitration, they don’t get compensation—so the Royals would make that offer after the fact and spare the Giants of having to spend on a first-round pick in 2004.”
They basically signed Michael Tucker before the Royals had to decide on offering arbitration. That way it was a no-brainer, the Royals could get the Giants pick if they wanted it by offering Tucker arbitration and knowing he would have to decline it. I believe a similar thing was done with Omar Vizquel.
rlpete - December 3, 2008
How?
You can’t trade picks.
Al Yellon - December 3, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.