TEAR DOWN

 Part of the MLB Trade Rumors live chat from December 29:

Cubs (Comment)

2:01

Seems they just gave away Darvish. Also are Cubs in rebuild now.

 

Steve Adams (Response)

2:03

They pretty much did. They're a worse team now with Davies than with Darvish and Caratini, and no one else they acquired will help them before 2023. This team won the division and went to the playoffs -- and despite the fact that no one else in the NL Central is trying, the Cubs are content to just deliberately get worse. I'd be furious if I were a Cubs fan.

 

 "I'd be furious if I were a Cubs fan."

The Cubs are not in a rebuild. They are in a tear down. Epstein left early because he did not want the terrible job to trade away or cut his "friends" (players he signed). One commentator said of the Darvish deal, he did not realize that Jed Hoyer was still working for the Padres.

It does send an awful message to Cub Land.

It was reported that the Cubs lost $200 million in 2020. However, if you look closely, that is an exaggeration. And most of the losses were self-inflicted by ownership.

The Cubs biggest problem was its television deal. Or lack of one. The Marquee Network was a first year failure. Comcast did not pay the Cubs network until October.  The national TV revenue was probably cut to a third. The Cubs current radio rights deal is very small when it burned itself by leaving WGN in a bumbling fashion. The Cubs probably had total broadcast revenue of $25 million.

But the Cubs payroll of $214 million was prorated down to $71 million. Plus, the Cubs saved on not funding any minor league affiliates. Plus, early in the year, the Cubs laid off most of its scouting and development staff. In reality, the "baseball operations" may have lost $50 million in 2020.

But the Ricketts biblical horror has to do with the fact no fans came to games. They claim that 67 percent of their revenue comes from fans attending games. Again, there is no way to know if that is true.  But the argument is mixing apples and oranges as a great portion of Ricketts family revenue comes from non-baseball operations. Wrigley Field is a separate revenue entity. Ricketts lost all extra concert revenues. The bars and restaurants in Gallagher Way had no thirsty fans to spend big money pre and post games. There were several tenants in Ricketts buildings that went out of business, including Joe Maddon's restaurant, meant that rental revenues were seriously down. The hotel was closed for the entire year, so no revenue from that property. The other ancillary businesses, such as the parking lot revenue, also evaporated. But part of the problem of Ricketts financial cries is that they overbuilt the neighborhood, relied on public support at inflated prices, and bombed at creating their own cash cow network. If Ricketts lost $200 million, it is fair to guess that most of it is from bad ancillary business operations.

As it stands today, the Cubs projected 2021 payroll is $122 million. If the Cubs trade of Darvish is any indication, the pending free agents of Bryant (owed $18.6 M), Rizzo ($16.5 M) and Baez ($11 M) are also trade targets (but at much lesser value than Darvish). You might as well add Hendricks ($14 M) to the fire sale bargain bin. If you trade those players, Ricketts lops off another $60.1 million in payroll. NOW, YOU CAN BOAST you are at $62 million, small market level which means you may be able to break even on the baseball side in 2021.

It is obvious that Ricketts and the front office do not care about the fans. The Cubs WON the division this year. The Reds and Brewers already signaled that they were giving up on 2021. The Pirates are already in the early stages of a complete rebuild. The Cardinals lost veterans and seem to be willing to stay pat this off-season. The NL Central is going to be a weak and crappy division that the Cubs could win again if the team stayed as is. 

To say that Davies, Mills, Alzolay and Rea are just as good as Darvish, Lester, Chatwood and Quintana is an insult. The Cubs currently only have TWO outfielders listed on their 40 man roster. It speaks to the fact that the 2021 roster will be filled in with cheap, journeymen players at the end of their careers. It stinks like the teams Epstein pulled together during his rebuild (the ones he wanted losses from to get high, no risk first round draft picks).

The one elephant in the room that the Ricketts cannot see is that the great Cub fandom is not going to pay premium prices to watch a crappy, tear down AAA team play at Wrigley Field. Fans do not have to - - - they have their World Series Championship and those memories. The Cubs lost their "lovable loser" badge in favor of dynasty championship franchise. The latter did not materialize even though the Cubs did make the playoffs. The bitter taste is that the young core that has aged out underperformed (sat on their laurels) with only one World Series appearance.

This tear down will be brutal and further be financially destructive to ownership who still thinks owning the "Cubs brand" is like printing money. The pandemic may not be under control until July, 2021 when the vaccines will be readily available to the general public. The middle class that lost their businesses due to lock down closures, bankruptcies and lack of employment opportunities is not going to be season ticket holders or even cable subscribers as the season starts. 

No one is going to shed a "tear" for ownership during the tear down because the Ricketts are not very well liked in Chicago. The family politics and relationship with Sinclair still irks some fans. People will not pay premium dollars for an inferior product when there is a young and exciting baseball team on the South Side of town.

OFF-FIELD BALK

 Major League Baseball and all 30 of its teams are suing their insurance providers, citing billions of dollars in losses during the 2020 season played almost entirely without fans due to the coronavirus pandemic. But the vast majority of business cases involving the pandemic (contract clauses, payment issues, insurance claims) have failed to give aggrieved parties any relief.

The suit, filed in October in California Superior Court in Alameda County, was obtained Friday by The Associated Press. It says providers AIG, Factory Mutual and Interstate Fire and Casualty Company have refused to pay claims made by MLB despite the league’s “all-risk” policy purchases.

The league claims to have lost billions of dollars on unsold tickets, hundreds of millions on concessions, tens of millions on parking and millions more on suites and luxury seat licenses, in-park merchandise sales and corporate sponsorships. It also cites over a billion dollars in local and national media losses, plus tens of millions in missed income for MLB Advanced Media. It says all of those losses should be covered by their policies.

Since COVID-19 sparked government-ordered shutdowns in March, judges have dismissed more than four times as many business-interruption lawsuits as they’ve allowed to proceed, according to a preliminary analysis by the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Industry executives say pandemic-related losses may be their biggest ever, and business-interruption claims will likely be part of that, even though many insurers added virus waivers to policies over the past decade following the SARS outbreak in 2003.

The Insurance Journal reports most of the cases tossed out so far had virus-exclusion clauses. When policies don’t have the exclusion, insurers are arguing COVID-19 can’t cause the physical damage or loss required for a business-interruption payout, like from a tornado or flood. And the industry is winning dismissals with that argument, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

“Business-insurance policies are meant to cover physical things,” said Sean Kevelighan, the chief executive at the institute, which has more than 60 insurance company members. “There’s a ways to go” in the legal battle over coverage, but “the beginning of it is encouraging,” he said.

A September win by Farmers Insurance Exchange in California typifies how some judges interpret “physical loss or damage.” A federal judge concluded a barbershop chain couldn’t show its business suffered a “distinct, demonstrable physical alteration.”

Other businesses have also struck out in trying to persuade judges to allow their claims to go to trial over policies that had virus exclusions. A federal judge in Arizona ruled Nov. 13 the Class AA Chattanooga Lookouts and more than a dozen other teams couldn’t overcome the exclusions.

THE NEW OLD SYSTEM

For the past week, team equipment trucks have been motoring to Arizona and Florida. Spring training begins in about a week.

But about half of the Top 50 free agents remain unsigned. And the prospects of mega-deal long term contracts are fading fast.

The new free agent dogma is actually the renewal of the old ownership system. Way back, teams used to be owned by individuals or families. The baseball club was their sole business. They operated it like a mom and pop store. If they could get by cutting corners (player salaries) to make a profit, they made a profit first.

Small market clubs still operate under that guide line. Low attendance, small fan base, and lower local television deals means these clubs are under financial pressure against signing a player to a large contract. But under the CBA and baseball rules, all the small market teams have enhanced revenue sharing from the league, and extra draft picks to acquire "cheap" young talent to remain "competitive."

General managers now covet draft picks because they can retain a player for six years (three in arbitration) at a relative small cost. The farm system is now the most important aspect of the operations. If you can draft and develop talent consistently, your team can be frugal, competitive and profitable.

In order to do so, teams now "tank" more often to obtain higher "can't miss" prospects. It is okay to tank if you have very little fans to complain (see, Marlins.)

You have now about one-third (1/3) of MLB clubs at the bottom in salary budgets, many whom have little desire but to tank to acquire top ten draft picks.

You have the top four spenders, big market clubs, who are at the luxury cap limit of $206 million. These previously annual big spenders do not want to go over the salary cap because of the financial and draft penalties. To take on a salary like Harper's $30 million/year $300 million total, it could cost a team over the cap as much as another $300 million in penalties over that ten year period. To avoid that, the team would have to off-set or cut $30 million a year for the duration of the contract (which some GMs would classify as three veteran players or four quality relief pitchers in value.)

The rest of the clubs position themselves to spend $100 to $150 million per year. If their division is weak, like the AL Central, they could be in contention most of the season (thus validating their "plan" to their fans). Fair weather fans might return so everybody is happy. But with an average starting pitcher making $10 million, a team could have almost one-third of their payroll in a rotation. That leaves an average salary of $4 million for every other player on the roster. That is why prospects being paid the league minimum ($555,000) are so important as they free up money to sign or retain veteran players (second tier).

Player agents may be late to recognize this new paradigm being the old system before steroid fueled free agency. Teams now have the MBAs, computer geeks and stat analysts crunching big data to find that players over 30 in the non-steroid era are not as valuable or productive going forward. So many teams have been burned by long term, dead money contracts to be gun-shy about signing another player demanding even more money.

It seems that Harper's foray (or folly) into free agent basically ended when he rejected the Nationals pre-free agency extension of $300 million/30 years. Machado has not formally rejected the White Sox $175 million offer, but it seems no one else has topped it. The Phils said they would spend "stupid money," and if that was the case Harper and/or Machado would have had last month a press conference in Philadelphia. Agents must be frustrated by the "take it or leave it" offers from teams (who are giving their best contract first without being pushed and pulled by other teams or the agent.) Free agency is no longer a live auction between teams. It is more like a Priceline value search.

TOP SPENDERS

The Associated Press broke down this year's big spenders, i.e. the Usual Suspects.

The New York Yankees are on track to open the season this week with baseball's seventh-highest payroll, their lowest ranking since 1992.

The Boston Red Sox will top the major leagues at about $223 million, ending the Los Angeles Dodgers' four-year run as the top spender. San Francisco will be second at around $203 million, and the Chicago Cubs are set to be third at about $183 million.

The Dodgers and Washington Nationals will each be at approximately $180 million, and the Los Angeles Angels will be next at about $170 million. The Yankees will be at around $167 million — their lowest payroll since 2003.

 Most of these teams were at the top last year on the big spender list. So much so that most of the teams did not add very much "new" payroll above last year's total.

With the luxury tax at $197 million, the Red Sox and Giants are going to get hit with a surcharge (and be really hurt in 2019 if they are over the amount for a second year in a row). The Cubs, Dodgers and Nationals have only a marginal threshold to stay under the cap. Barring a significant injury, these clubs will stand pat during the season.

The Yankees are interesting because they have room to sign a valuable free agent left on the board (Greg Holland?) if the need arises in the near future. The Yankees lineup is powerful, even with the Bird injury. Even so, the prospect of the Yankees having $36 million more to spend in 2019 when Bryce Harper hits the open market will be a story line for this year.

Baseball has developed a harsh bell curve in salary structures. As the big teams continue to spend, the small market teams seem to have contracted their payrolls to the point where the union is crying foul. The Rays, Pirates and Marlins have been giving away veteran players in exchange for "controllable" year prospects (at major league minimum salaries.) The concept of the tear down rebuild has worked for the last two World Series champions, so the union cannot claim that that business model is flawed. However, the Marlins and Rays seem to be in perpetual rebuild mode.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/national-business/article206913694.html#storylink=cpy

HARD SELL

Agent Scott Boras went to the GM meeting demanding that teams spend big money on his clients like J.D. Martinez and Jake Arrieta. He is looking for $200 million plus deals for his players.

But his rants only caught the attention of a few reporters.

The luxury tax threshold and penalties of the new CBA are starting to take effect. Simply put, the penalty for going over the threshold of $195 million payroll is a percentage of the overage. If you go over year after year, that percentage increases to 100%. And then, you start having your draft choices being downgraded 10 slots. So the payroll cap has now both financial and operational penalties.

Owners want to control unnecessary costs and scouting departments do not want to be handcuffed with their draft picks. It puts teams more in line with the spirit of the rule. It also lessens the big market teams from overspending on free agents who are demanding long term deals.

The longer the deal for a veteran, the more likely it is that there will be more dead money at the end.

So it will be a harder sell for agents to get top dollar for an above average, free agent player.

Some speculate that many teams, including the Cubs, are holding back overspending this year because next year's free agent class is better (with Bryce Harper the star who may blow past the $400 million contract line.)

Others speculate that a few teams would rather collect international signing bonus money to try to get 23 year old Japanese star Ontani. The Mariners just traded a young, 100 mph flame throwing reliever to the White Sox for $500,00 international cash. Seattle now has $1.55 million in international cash to attempt to sign Ontani.

The Cubs and a few other clubs previously went over the international pool cap. They are penalized by not being allowed to spend over $300,000 for any foreign player. This effectively puts them out of the Ontani sweepstakes (if he gets posted by his current club).

It has been reported that baseball revenues have increased while the CBA is effectively not allowing those new dollars to flow into player salaries. The Marlins talk about trading Stanton (who has a no trade clause) to drop their payroll is another item that irks player agents. If Stanton and few other higher cost players are traded, the Marlins (under new ownership) will field a low-cost,  AAAA team in 2018.

CRAZIER THAN IT SEEMS

In the never ending moving target that is the Wrigley "rehabilitiation" project, the Ricketts are going back to the Chicago Landmark Commission, again, to revise their plans.

This time to eliminate one sign and reduce the size of the scoreboard.

These requirements are needed in order to trying to get approximately $70 million in "historic preservation" tax credits from the federal government. For those unaware how tax credits work, it gives a person or corporation in essence non-taxation on other income in order to promote the maintenance of landmark structures.

So when the Ricketts initially said they would not be using any taxpayer money on their project, they lied. Tax credits take tax dollars from government treasuries so taxpayers have to make up the difference.

But the most crazy aspect of this whole scheme is lost by everyone in the media like a deer in headlights: Wrigley Field is a historic landmark in its current structure, but the Ricketts family wants to designate it a "historic landmark" AFTER all the new, modern, electronic signage has been built in the bleachers.

None of the new signage has anything to do with the century old character of the building.

It is like a movie theater chain buying Ford's Theater in D.C., knocking it down to build a 20 screen Cineplex, then ask for huge historic tax credits because Lincoln was shot in the premises.

The whole idea that the new signs have any "historical" significance is absurd. They have not even been built yet! How can any person with common sense believe that preservation tax breaks can be used not to preserve the existing structure but totally change it.

IN many communities, landmark districts have strict rules. Owners of buildings must comply with the type of materials used to repair and maintain their buildings. Paints have to meet historical color standards. It costs more to to replace rotting siding with wood plank than with a modern vinyl product. So that is why tax break assistance is thought to be in the community's best interests to keep the aesthetic nature of an old downtown district.

AS I have mentioned previously in this blog, there is going to be a national jaw drop once the "improvements" at Wrigley Field have been completed. The memories of Wrigley Field that was televised throughout the nation on the WGN superstation will be jarred by the commercial overload of bleacher signage.

But when Ricketts talk about "restoring" Wrigley Field, they are really meaning that they are trying to make the most money as possible from their venue.

TAXING OUR PATIENCE

The Ricketts family has told the us time and time again that the Wrigley renovation project was not going to funded by any public money. Well, that turns out to be a rather big white lie.

First, the city gave away parts of the public streets for the bleacher expansion. Normally, the city sells the property to the private developer at fair market value, which could have put millions into the city's coffers. 

Second. the Cubs are seeking a $75 million tax credit from the IRS to help off-set (and pay for) much of the Wrigley Field project. The tax credit is supposed to help people restore historic and landmark buildings. That is money that other taxpayers, such as ourselves, will have to make up. As the Tribune reports, the Park Service and the IRS have raised serious issues about the historic "restoration" of Wrigley:

In a memo to the Cubs obtained by the Tribune, the agency expressed concern about advertising overkill at Wrigley, which is known for its ivy-covered outfield walls, hand-turned scoreboard and intimate dimensions as opposed to typical corporate billboards at every other baseball stadium.

"It is important that the cumulative impact of new signage in the outfield does not, in itself, create such a defining feature that the historic character of the stadium is altered," stated the memo, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In a statement, the Cubs said that it is "normal for there to be changes to design and construction as a project evolves and we are working with" the Park Service to finalize approval for those changes. The team said the entire project has been approved by the city of Chicago, and it intends to start construction at the end of the season.

But the federal government does not cede authority over its determination to a rubber-stamped city council. The article also states:

The Cubs are not required to get final certification of their rehabilitation plans before starting work. But the Park Service in general cautions property owners that any work begun before getting formal approval is done at their own risk of losing potential tax credits. If such work is subsequently deemed not to meet the Park Service's standards, then the entire project may be disqualified for consideration of benefits from the federal government.

One of the standards deals with new construction and states, "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."

The team was hoping to have the Park Service give the team the thumbs up on the revisions before the landmarks commission voted on the changes in July, said Carol Dyson, chief architect and tax incentives coordinator at the state preservation agency.

"Much of the work being proposed can meet the guidelines," Dyson said. "The additional signage is something that's a little more complicated to evaluate. It has some visual impact."

As we have posted at length before, the plans for Wrigley Field is not "restoration" of a historic building and its landmark elements, but a massive real estate development project to create new advertising and commercial revenue streams to ownership. If the money was just going to rebrick the outfield walls, repair the manual center field scoreboard, or replace all the seats with traditional wood ones from the original era of the ball park, that would be "restoration" of the facility to its former glory. But adding electronic jumbotrons, expanding the footprint to add restaurants and bars, and advertising signage in and around the ball park has nothing to do with historic preservation but corporate greed. And that is why federal officials are balking at the tax credit request; how are these plans conserving any historical feature of Wrigley Field?

In the big picture, the tax credit is more important than the advertising signage. It amounts to 25 percent of the projected construction budget for the Wrigley Field portion of the plan. If it is not granted, the Ricketts cannot off-set or shield $75 million of income. This windfall may be critical in keeping the financial ship from listing further as any tax savings bolsters the bottom line of profitability.

ALTERNATIVE B.S.

All season long, I have watched the Cubs "alternative" road uniform as the team struggles series after series. And my attention was drawn to the last two letters of the logo: B.S.

This whole season is wrapped up in a one large basket of B.S.

There was an internet report that the Cubs are close to settling with the roof top owners on the team's new signage demands. In truth, there was nothing to settle. The Cubs and the roof top owners have an existing settlement contract. It was the Cubs who want to unilaterally change it. And it is the Cubs who used the roof top owners demands to "abide by" the existing contract as an excuse NOT to start any renovation of Wrigley Field. The two items are unrelated so this is merely team B.S.

The Cubs continue to throw around the "burden" of ownership of spending $500 million of their own, private money, into the Wrigley Field rehab project. But his martyrdom is also B.S. because the actual Wrigley Field repairs is a small fraction of the total project cost which includes an entire block across the street from Wrigley Field (with a hotel, health club, parking lot and commercial space). Outside the ball park is the most expensive part of the project. And the cry of being beat up by the city and neighbors is another excuse, considering the city gave the owners a large real estate tax break for the Wrigley repairs and green lighted a zoning variation to build a highly dense commercial development in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

The business executives and owners kept telling us that the team needs new revenue streams in order to be competitive. It cites the "bad" contract deals for local broadcast rights. But those contracts were known and accepted by the Ricketts during the purchase; and the same "smart" Tribune executives who structured those deals are still working for Ricketts. It is another excuse to defer away from the bad team creating bad ratings which is tanking Cub advertising revenues. The idea that the Cubs are "trapped" in bad TV deals until 2020 is weak considering the Tribune was able to field season after season of high payroll teams prior to the sale.

The story line continues to be that the young front office talent (Epstein and Hoyer) know what they are doing; they are the boy geniuses of baseball. Ricketts said they could win 83 games in their sleep. So why have the Cubs not come close to winning 83 games the past few seasons? Their Boston greatness has to be tempered by the fact that the Red Sox organization was already built up by Epstein's predecessor, and that the Red Sox ownership gave Theo a blank check to win. Here, in Chicago, there is no blank check. The baseball team is not a priority, but only a tenant at Wrigley Field's entertainment complex.

So it is really hard to watch the Cubs this season with all this B.S. surrounding the club. Unless you are a farmer with a million acres, the amount of manure generated by the team is monumental.

AS IN A WRECK

Bill Veeck owned the Chicago White Sox in two periods of the club's darkest days.

In 1959, Veeck became head of a group that purchased a controlling interest in the Sox, who went on to win their first pennant in 40 years.  That year the White Sox broke a team attendance record for home games with 1.4 million. The next year the team broke the same record with 1.6 million visitors with the addition of the first "exploding scoreboard" in the major leagues – producing electrical and sound effects and fireworks whenever the White Sox player hit a home run. He also added the players' surnames on the back of their uniform, a practice now standard by 25 of 30 clubs on all jerseys.

Veeck  could not financially compete so he sold off the team. However, he repurchased the tema in 1975. Veeck's return rankled baseball's owner establishment, most of the old guard viewing him as a pariah after both exposing most of his peers in his 1961 book Veeck As In Wreck, which is a must-read for any baseball fan. 

Almost immediately after taking control of the Sox for a second time Veeck unleashed another publicity stunt designed to irritate his fellow owners. He and general manager conducted four trades in a hotel lobby, in full view of the public. Two weeks later, however, an arbitrator ruled that the reserve clause void and ushered in the era of free agency. Veeck's power as an owner began to wane relative to richer owners. He still could not financially compete with the rich owners.  In an attempt to adapt to free agency he developed a "rent-a-player" model, centering on the acquisition of other clubs' stars in their option years. The gambit was moderately successful: in  1977 he White Sox won 90 games, and finished third in the standings.

There were a few guiding principles that made Veeck a successful team operator. He always said that he did nothing to diminish the game of baseball his team played on the field. All of his stunts, promotions and innovations were to make the fan experience better; to draw fans in like a circus did during his own childhood. He also treated his players with respect, as he knew they were the stars of his show. He had to keep costs low in order to draw people to the ball park. The one thing he never did was discount ticket prices, because he felt fans had to know that is what they were paying for: baseball.

He was a small market operator playing in the shadow of big city rich teams. He once said that he survived by selling out home stands when the Yankees or Red Sox came into town.

Veeck was the last baseball owner in Chicago who actually knew all aspects of running a major league baseball team. He grew up in the ground crew at Wrigley when his father was with the Cubs. He knew concessions, marketing, contracts and most importantly, people. He was out in the stands talking to patrons about what they liked or disliked about the Cubs. This was before the sterile market surveys or focus groups; Veeck was out having conversations with real people who enjoyed his game. He was seen as a man of the people, and in certain respects he became the face of the franchise.

Veeck lived and died at the gate. Attendance at Comiskey was the biggest revenue source for his teams. Likewise, Epstein's recent admission that the Cubs are overly dependent on fans coming to Wrigley is a haunting echo to Veeck's past in Chicago.

Last weekend, a report surfaced that internal projects from the Cubs show that the team will only draw 1.7 million fans in 2014. That is another deep drop in attendance. If that is true, then the Cubs would be falling toward 1980-1981 attendance levels (which is the first years of the Tribune reign). This would also be another 650,000 lost ticket sales in just one off-season. In the Cubs own revenue project formula, that fan loss equates to approximately $34.5 million of top line revenue. The anecdotal evidence to support this report is that several former season ticket holders have been cold called by the Cubs numerous times this off-season to try to have them reconsider and buy a ticket package. One would not have to call former ticket holders if the team had such a long waiting list, unless of course, those people also passed on season ticket packages for 2014. The Ricketts ownership is on pace then to lose a staggering 49 percent of their attendance in the first six years of running the Cubs.

Besides the financial wreck that has hit home with the Cubs, Epstein and the front office has been grousing about the fact that the new CBA has hindered their rebuilding plans. They can no longer overpay for a hoard of prospects. But Veeck had more restrictions on him when he ran teams than Epstein does today. And Veeck figured out a way to field a competitive team by obtaining players in their final contract years before free agency. Players playing for next year's contract usually play a little harder. Epstein has done just the opposite. Instead of building a team of hungry veterans in contract years, he has traded away all those type of players for multiple low-level prospects. As a result, the major league team is very bad 100-loss expansion club.

As the old saying goes, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. The Cubs are on a free fall path back to the early 1960s, which is not a good thing. Ricketts is turning into a new P.K. Wrigley, which is really not a good thing.

WHAT'S AT STAKE

Major league baseball players are very well compensated for what they do.  The Associated Press reports that the average major league player salary was $3.39 million, an increase of 5.4 percent from the previous season. 

In contrast, civilian compensation is increasing at an annual rate of 1.9 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average U.S. wage in 2012 was $42,498, according to the Social Security Administration.

The Yankees had the highest average for the 15th consecutive season at $8.17 million, breaking the mark of $7.66 million when they won the World Series in 2009. The Los Angeles Dodgers were second at $7.82 million. Houston's average of $549,603 was the smallest since the 1999 Kansas City Royals at $534,460. The Miami Marlins were 29th at $830,069, down from $3.77 million in 2012, when they ranked 10th.  World Series champion Boston was fourth at $5.46 million, just behind Detroit at $5.53 million. St. Louis, which won the NL pennant, was 10th at $3.75 million.

Tampa Bay had the lowest ranking among the 10 playoff teams and was 24th at $2.13 million.

Baseball's collective bargaining agreement requires a team to use revenue-sharing money it receives "in an effort to improve its performance on the field." The Marlins had been required to raise player payroll annually from 2010-12 under an agreement between MLB and the union.

However, the issue is being dealt with under a provision in the collective bargaining agreement that gradually eliminates the 15 teams in the largest markets from receiving revenue sharing, and the Astros are 15th. Under that provision, those clubs forfeited 25 percent of the money this year, half in 2014, 75 percent the following year and all in 2016.

Among regulars at positions, designated hitters took over from first basemen for the highest average at $10.5 million. First basemen were next at $6.5 million, followed by starting pitchers at $6.3 million, second basemen at $5.8 million, outfielders at $5.6 million, third basemen at $5.2 million, shortstops at $4.5 million, catchers at $4.4 million and relief pitchers at $2.2 million.

The lure of being a millionaire playing a child's game is one of the reasons why players continue to cheat. There is life-changing money at stake. Even with strict steroid testing, players continue to try to find a way around the protocols. This goes for minor league players thinking juicing could be their only way to make a big league team, to veterans who fear that they may lose their job or big money free agent contract years if they don't enhance their performance levels.

It is not that the players should not get what teams are willing to pay. According to Forbes Magazine, MLB had record revenues in 2013, with gross revenues exceeding $8 billion for the first time, ever.

While exact figures were not revealed, baseball will end 2013 with revenues between $8-$8.5 billion which is more than a 10 percent increase from last year's $7.5 billion revenue figure. The revenue growth is happening while attendance has been ostensibly flat for the league. The continuing growth  engine for baseball is in television revenue, especially the team's new regional television deals.