UPGRADES

One of the main objectives of any sports' general manager is to take an objective view of his team's performance, then spend the off-season to upgrade positions lost or of need.

Objectively, 2017 Cubs fell down the sink hole with inconsistent hitting, poorer defense than 2016 and worn out pitching down the stretch.

The team lost two starting pitchers, a closer, bullpen arms and back up catcher.

The team has major needs in the pitching department (2 starters, a closer and relievers).

The team also needs to find consistent .300 hitters to balance out the feast-or-famine hitters. A traditional lead off hitter would be nice, too.

As it currently stands, Tyler Chatwood was signed to be a starting pitcher. He projects to be a back of the rotation arm. So does he replace Arrieta in the rotation? No. Does he replace Lackey? Maybe. But the other starter on the depth chart is AAA Eddie Butler. He does not appear to replace or upgrade either Arrieta or Lackey.

The Cubs signed reliever Brandon Morrow. He is projected to be either the set up man or closer. Is he an upgrade over Wade Davis? Probably not. Morrow was the workhorse for the Dodgers in the playoffs, throwing in 14 of 15 games. As we have seen in the recent past, managers who abuse pitchers at the end of their contracts usually have a bad next season (example, Chapman).

Drew Smyly was signed to a two year deal, but he had Tommy John surgery last July so he may not even pitch in 2018. (The current Cubs philosophy of signing injured pitchers and pay for a year of rehab without production is very odd.) You really cannot count on Smyly being a starter or reliever.

The Cubs acquired reliever Dario Alvarez. Is he an upgrade from Hector Rondon? No. Alvarez has only 56 major league appearances.

As we stand today, none of the Cubs off-season moves have objectively upgraded the roster.

What still bothers many is that the Cubs could have made a major upgrade by trading for Giancarlo Stanton. Objectively, Stanton would have been the best outfielder on the Cubs roster. He would have only cost one 25 man roster player (Baez or Russell) and two minor leaguers.

Unless the front office believes that they have internal solutions to their roster problems. But just counting on a player to have a "rebound" year is more hope and an position upgrade.

A Stanton trade would have opened up second base to be platooned by Happ and Zobrist. Heyward would have been moved to center with a platoon with Almora. Schwarber and Happ could platoon in left field. And Stanton would have anchored the line up at clean up spot, protecting Rizzo.

It is still early on a slow hot stove winter, but clearly the Cubs still need to upgrade several positions.

LAWSUITS: BATTER UP!

The Cubs have applied for a city permit to construct a 650 square foot advertising sign (with a beer sponsor name) as represented in this Cubs press release graphic.  When a mock up was shown to rooftop owners last year, it confirmed to them that their views into Wrigley Field would be obstructed by the new sign.

The Cubs and the rooftop businesses are in the middle of a 20 year peace agreement in which the Cubs were given 17 percent of the rooftop revenue in exchange for the Cubs not putting up anything that would obstruct the rooftop views. Ricketts assumed this agreement when his family bought the Cubs from the Tribune.

The Cubs have been wanting to kill off the rooftop businesses because executives believe that the rooftops are taking away revenue that rightfully belongs to the team. The Cubs keep squawking to the media that the rooftop owners need to compromise so the team can start their $500 million rehab/real estate development projects. However, the rooftop owners don't have to do anything - - - they have a contract with the Cubs. It is the Cubs who unilateral want to change the terms. And besides, the real estate development projects, including capital improvements in the clubhouses, has nothing to do with added outfield signage. The Cubs are trying to get the city to push back at the rooftop owners. It probably will not work.

For the rooftop owners know the Cubs will not renew their agreement when it ends in 2023. So in order to recoup their investment, the rooftop businesses need to maintain the status quo. Any obstructions would dramatically kill their sales. And perhaps, that is the whole point of the Cubs pushing the new signage. It may be because fielding a bad team for three years has not driven away business from the rooftops. Or, perhaps, the Cubs plan to take away that business segment by building their own RF party deck has been a failure. 

In a statement reacting to the news that the  Cubs applied for a sign permit the rooftop owners released a statement saying that they will sue.

“Rooftop owners believe a blockage of our views violates the contract we have with the owners of the Cubs,” said Ryan McLaughlin, spokesman for the Wrigleyville Rooftops Association. “We have instructed our legal team to proceed accordingly.”

The statement adds only that the Cubs' move was “an unfortunate turn of events because our hope was to find a solution to this matter.”


The Cubs defense to any legal action to enforce the settlement contract appears weak. The Cubs are planning to say that the city approved the new signs, so the team should be able to do it. The team cites a paragraph in the agreement that states that an expansion of the ball park is not a breach. But all contracts have the concept of "good faith" and "fair dealing" incorporated into the performance of them. How an advertising sign could be considered an "expansion" but not a barrier is a tough sell. In addition, the city was not a party to the settlement agreement. Constitutionally, the city cannot take away any contract or property rights of the rooftop business owners without public condemnation and paying fair market value for those rights. However, there is no public purpose here since the Cubs are a private business and the signage in question serves no public purpose. The Cubs could also fall back to say so what we're in breach, we will go ahead and pay damages. But since the unique character of the contract, the rooftop owners could seek an injunction to prevent the new signage as damages could be inadequate if the default destroys their businesses. What is at stake is approximately $200 million in gross revenue left in the 10 years remaining on the deal. It is highly doubtful the Ricketts will write a check for $100 million plus to buy themselves out of the rooftop deal.

When the Ricketts bought the Cubs from the Tribune, they were aware of a few critical dates.

2014: when the Cubs could open the WGN TV and radio deal.
2020: when the Cubs exclusive cable deal expires.
2023: when the Cubs rooftop deal expires.

If these three revenue areas are key for the Ricketts rebuilding projects, as eluded to during the Cub convention, then it is possible that nothing could happen for another 10 years.

DECISIONS

You can only be judged by the outcome of the decisions you have made; what was good or bad depends on the results.

By far, the Cubs decision makers have not been doing well.

1. The Ian Stewart trade with the Rockies was a total bust. The Cubs traded two major league ready prospects for a veteran who had lingering injuries.

2. The trade for Arodys Vizcaino for Paul Maholm & Reed Johnson appears to be headed toward total bust. Vizcaino is now deep into the second year after arm surgery with no time table, if ever, of returning to the majors.

3. The signing of injured pitcher Scott Baker, who is having a slow rehab and no clear return date, is heading toward the Vizcaino trash bin.

4. The long term extension of Starlin Castro has some people concerned that the Cubs rewarded a young player under team control who has not improved since his rookie season.

5. The decision to sign Edwin Jackson, a career .500 pitcher, to a long term $52 million deal looks bad. Jackson is currently 1-8, the worst pitcher in the Cubs rotation.

There may be a few plus moves like Anthony Rizzo, but he is just in his first full season and the league will adjust to his swing. But again, the Cubs made the decision to sign Rizzo long term when they could have waited to see if Rizzo becomes the next D. Lee or Hoffpauir.

The Cubs also have a growing public relations problem. Ricketts and his business minions are trying to bully their vision of Lakeview redevelopment to meet their own goals and the expense of the adjoining businesses and residents. Further, the same mistakes and frustrating on field play continues to gnaw at fans who are showing their displeasure by not attending games. The conga line of marginal replacement players donning the Cub uniform for the last two seasons needs to stop.