BACK UP THE MOVING VAN

 The Cubs 11 game losing streak has changed the team's view of the playoffs and off-season programs.

The remaining core and recent additions are pending free agents: Bryant, Baez, Rizzo, Pedersen. Kimbrel and Contreras have one more year of potential control. 

With the CBA expiring at the end of the season, there is great uncertainty on what will happen to the free agent market and whether the FA compensation rules will change. Currenty, only those who turn down the one-year qualifying offer from their clubs will have compensation attached to them. Those offers must be made by the club within the first five full days after the World Series ends, and players then have 10 days to accept or decline the offer, during which time they can negotiate with other teams

Under the current rules, if the team that loses the free agent is a revenue-sharing recipient, based on its revenues and market size, then the selection -- if and only if the lost player signs for at least $50 million -- will be awarded a pick between the first round and Competitive Balance Round A of the 2019 MLB Draft. If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round.

The following 16 teams currently qualify for these picks: A's, Braves, Brewers, D-backs, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Orioles, Padres, Pirates, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers and Twins.

If the team that loses the player does not receive revenue sharing and did not exceed the luxury-tax salary threshold the previous season, its compensatory pick will come after Competitive Balance Round B. The value of the player's contract doesn't matter in this case. The 12 clubs that fall into this category are the Angels, Astros, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, White Sox and Yankees.

The Cubs have several options with their pending free agents:

1. Keep them through the season. Let the core group have a final swan song together. Then let me go on their merry way.

2. Keep them through the season. Then offer them a qualifying offer (last year was $17.6 million) or even arbitration. If the player rejects the QO, then potential draft compensation may attach. If rejects arbitration, then no draft comp.

3. Try to negotiate an extension with the players. We have only heard crickets this season on any extension talk. With Ricketts claiming poverty and Hoyer trading his best starter in a clear salary dump, ownership has not signaled any willingness to commit large dollars to their old players.

4. Think about trades. If you think your scouting department can pick gems in compensatory rounds (picks from 48 to 100), then waiting to draft someone could be more valuable than trading a rental player for a low minor league prospect. Trading partners this year are highly unlikely to part with any of their Top 15-20 prospects for a two month rental player. Only if two or more teams fight over player will the value rise. 

5. Have a fire sale. Try to squeeze as much value as you can from your current roster. Everybody has a chance to get on the moving van. Trade deadline contenders usually want closers, starters and specialty hitters/defenders to fill in bench role. Kimbrel probably has the most trade value because he has had a solid year. Contreras is probably the second most valuable trade chip. He has one more year of control and is a top NL catcher. A team like the White Sox could use him now. Hendricks has already signed a team friendly extension so I doubt he will be moved but he has as much value as Contreras. Bryant is purely a rental who will hit the FA market. His up and down little injuries year does not help. Unless a contender loses a middle of the line up bat, market interest may be thin for KB. Baez has less market value than Bryant. He is too inconsistent at the plate and lately in the field (14 errors). He has the personality and PR appeal that could help some clubs sell tickets but not at a great trade cost. Pedersen fits into the Schwarber mode (DH more than OF) which limits thinking to AL teams. 

6. Let them test the free agent market, then negotiate a new deal in the wild. It is possible to try to reel back in one of your players. The Cubs did it with pitcher Hamel. But it is rare. And the Cubs would have to dramatically change its small market mind set. Also, free agents want a chance to win now and it is clear the Cubs do not have the organizational depth to field a championship caliber contender in the next few years.

If the Cubs stumble into the All Star break, the fire sale is the most likely option. But look at the Darvish trade as the bitter cough medicine fans will have to swallow. The Cubs received nothing of value in return and only one marginal major leaguer (Davies). At the trade deadline, I would expect only Class A ball players in return for any one except maybe Kimbrel or Contreras. But even then, most teams would rather see how the new CBA financial terms will be set before parting with any of their controllable (i.e. cheap) minor league players. Teams have learned their is more value in developing and promoting their draft choices to keep them for 7 years than trading away good prospects for an illusory chance at the pennant or World Series.

If I were to guess on who will be traded I think Kimbrel, Baez and Bryant are the candidates. I think the team will keep Rizzo to the end of the year because he is still the face of their franchise and the Cub house leader. I think the strong push to eliminate the 2016 team is apparent as the championship has been an actual anchor drag on the team as the players generally did not improve and scouting and operations departments failed to draft and develop their replacements.

LOSING THE CLUBHOUSE

Tony LaRussa is a fossilized dinosaur. His ideas about baseball are out of touch. His managing skills have been questioned all season. Some observers think his strategies and decisions have cost the White Sox at least three games this season. There were early rumors that many players in the clubhouse did not support LaRussa as their manager. Some think the players are winning in spite of LaRussa.
Things are coming to an ugly crossroads within the White Sox clubhouse.

The White Sox were routing the Twins, the preseason favorite to win the AL Central. The White Sox had built up a huge lead that in the late innings the Twins used an infielder as a relief pitcher.
On Monday night, Rookie Yermin Mercedes  drove a 3-0 pitch from infielder William Astudillo  deep to center in the ninth for a home run.  White Sox manager La Russa said Mercedes made a mistake, and the Hall of Fame skipper apologized to the Twins. LaRussa publicly stated that Mercedes was "clueless" about the unwritten rule(s) of baseball and that he would be punished for violating that unwritten rule.

However, prior to the Mercedes home run, the Twins bench was laughing at the White Sox who Astudillo got two outs against. Starter Lance Lynn defended Mercedes after the game. He called the Twins "crybabies" in their reaction to Mercedes hitting a HR in the 9th. "There are no rules when you put a position player out to pitch," he said. "If (the Twins) had a problem with it, then put in a (real) pitcher."

In the next game, Mercedes was the center of attention once again Twins reliever Tyler Duffey was ejected for throwing behind Mercedes in the seventh. Duffey threw the first pitch of the at-bat behind the slugger's legs. Duffey and Twins manager Rocco Baldelli then were ejected by plate umpire Jim Reynolds.

"It wasn't obvious to me," La Russa said. "The guy threw a sinker. It didn't look good. So, I wasn't that suspicious. I'm suspicious if somebody throws at somebody's head. Then I'm suspicious. I don't have a problem with how the Twins handled that."

Of course, no one believes LaRussa. It was an intentional "show up" pitch by the Twins. The pitcher was throwing at Mercedes. But LaRussa refused to publicly defend his player.

Nothing can lose a clubhouse faster than a manager not defending or having the backs of his players. Clearly, LaRussa "clueless" about what is happening on the field. By not sticking up for his player TWICE in consecutive days for doing NOTHING wrong, LaRussa has shown that he is not capable of leading the team to the playoffs.

But LaRussa is going to stay. He was an owner hire not GM Rick Hahn's choice. Jerry Reinsdorf has for decades regretted terminating LaRussa as White Sox manager. So he brought him back when Hahn had constructed a very good, play-off caliber team. 

When a team is fighting against significant injuries (the team has lost its entire starting outfield), a manager is supposed to support and rally the remaining players to battle. Instead, LaRussa was apologetic and weak. There were some commentators who thought before these incidents that LaRussa could be fired after the season. A few thought there was a remote chance he could be terminated during the season. But since the White Sox are still in first place (10.5 games ahead of the Twins), LaRussa's job is secure because he is Jerry's guy. And in the end Jerry calls the shots on the managerial position, even if it is detrimental to the team.

THE URGENCY OF HURLING

 New team President Jed Hoyer spoke to NBC Chicago Sports. 

“When you talk about urgency of this team, and it’s been stated,” team president Hoyer said, referencing a roster full of players on the one-year contracts. “We need to play well out of the gate. That doesn’t mean we have to play well the first two weeks. But when you think about the first half of the season, we need to put ourselves in position to be a buyer, to be a team that’s competing. 

"That’s probably a slightly different feeling than you might have had two or three years ago when all these guys are [are much further from free agency],” said Hoyer, who’s optimistic he’ll have a lot of payroll flexibility in July, depending on attendance allowances as COVID-19 restrictions presumably are lifted gradually into the summer. 

There is no way around the Truth: this is the last season for "The Core," the foundation players who won the championship. It really is the last gasp for the Cubs to try to win another championship before sinking in the total rebuild muck.

But this talk makes some fans hurl. The Yu Darvish trade was an early White Flag deal in which the Cubs could never recover. Marquee not showing live Cub spring training games is a cheap farce in a year public relations is needed to bring back fans to baseball.

The urgency to sign pitchers like Shelby Miller and Jake Arrieta past their primes is an indication of the one-and-done front office mentality. The starting rotation is a mess. The bullpen is also a mess. The farm system is a disaster. 

The only bright side is that most of the NL Central had their own talent fire sales due to financial pressures from 2020. Only the Cardinals made a splash to become the front runner in a weak division. The Cubs 2021 plan is hoping other teams stumble and their old veterans somehow find some magic to outperform expectations. Expectations that are very low.

With as many as 18 players on the Cubs’ projected 26-man Opening Day roster are players expected to be in walk years (either free agents at the end of the year or facing club-option decisions for 2022), the do-or-die mentality seems to be not there. There is such little local media coverage one wonders if the pandemic has sapped all interest in the team.

One can see now why Theo Epstein bailed on his last contract year to not oversee this pending dumpster fire. With ownership claiming biblical losses (of their own bad business practices), the Cubs are no longer the lovable losers but a failed dynasty. The team lacks an identity. It also lacks talent. It woefully lacks depth. 2021 is shaping up as a season to forget before it starts.

ANOTHER LISTLESS SPRING

 The Cubs start another season with very little competition for roster spots.

The Cubs went into the winter hibernation in early fire sale mode. The Yu Darvish salary dump and the owners cry of "biblical losses" due to the pandemic were not greatly received by Cub fans. The Atlanta Braves, the only publicly held team, reported a 2020 operating loss of $54 million.  The league claims $2.8 billion in losses (if Braves are average team, the league claim is double). 

A round of journeymen signings leads the Cubs who are really on the last year of the championship core window (which has effectively closed). Bringing back Jake Arrieta after two below average years is not a solution to a rotation that lost 4/5ths of last year's opening day starters. 

Barring any injury, this appears to be your Opening Day roster:

Starting Rotation: Hendricks, Davies, Arrieta, Mills, Williams

Catchers: Contreras, Romine

Infielders: Rizzo (1b), Hoerner (2b/ss), Bote (2b/3b), Baex (ss), Bryant (3b)

Outfielders: Happ, Heyward, Pederson, Marisnick

Bullpen: Kimbrel (closer), Workman, Winkler, Ryan, Wick, Wieck, Chafin, Tempera, Alzolay

Not a dominating team with any real depth.

The bullpen is basically last year's hit and miss crew. Kimbrel is still the closer by default since Jeffries left for free agency. Out of the mix are two of last year's spot starters: Alzolay and Rea.

The only bright spot is that only the Cardinals seemed to have attempted to improve their roster with the Arenaldo trade. The rest of the division have been salary cutting veterans. But it will be another long 2020 type season as the pandemic starts its fourth wave right around Opening Day.

SHUFFLING THE DECK CHAIRS

 Everyone knows the Cubs are a sinking ship. Tom Ricketts continues to declare "biblical" losses during the 2020 season. Theo Epstein could not part the sea of red ink. So Theo decided to bail; he cut a deal where his friend, Jed Hoyer, would retain his job with the new President title. The move saves Ricketts $10 million in Theo's 2021 salary. (The Athletic reported that recently the Cubs laid off 100 employees which we assume does not count the scouting and minor league staff let go early in the year.)

The Cubs are still a highly leveraged (debtor) team. The Ricketts family is also highly leveraged due to their overbuilding around Wrigley Field. The pandemic crushed their real estate holdings as many tenants, including Joe Maddon's restaurant, went out of business. Tom Ricketts had convinced his parents that the Cubs were a money making machine even in bad times (under the Tribune ownership).

But the Cubs bowing out early in the playoffs since the World Championship has hurt the club, both financially and structurally. Theo and Jed put all their eggs in early first round (can't miss) prospects like Bryant, Schwarber, Almora and Happ while overpaying for free agents to fill roster gaps (especially in pitching.) 

Since 2016, the team core (Bryant, Rizzo, Baez, Contreras and Schwarber) have not lived up to high expectations. Instead of a dynasty, the Cubs gained one World Championship (which was a generational accomplishment not to be dismissed in their legacy). But as 2021 is around the corner, the cupboard is bare.

Three fifths of the starting rotation is gone to free agency. The core of Bryant, Baez, Rizzo and Schwarber are in their final contract years. The Cubs minor league system is devoid of any major prospects. The system ranked 26th with Nico Hoerner the only Top 100 prospect.

2021 appears heading toward a "crash and burn" season. The pundits believe the Cubs should trade their pending free agents to get something for them (other than a compensation draft pick). But others note that those players are coming off bad seasons so they have little trade value. A few writers even speculated that the Cubs could non-tender Schwarber to save his projected $8 million arbitration award. No team is going to take Bryant and his $18.5 million projected salary as a rental player, especially with his injury history and poor 2020 stats.

The only players with real trade value are Darvish and Hendricks. But Hoyer cannot be insane to trade away his remaining starters for prospects. Internal candidates to fill the rotation are Mills, Alzolay and Rea. Ian Happ was the only player to show a break out potential to other clubs. But trading Happ leaves Almora the sole center field candidate.

Even though money came off the books (Lester, Chatwood, Quintana), that money appears to be lost in 2021 as Ricketts clearly indicated that the payroll must come down substantially. As of today, there is not one AAA player who projects to be a starting MLB player. 

Another problem is that the fan base may not support another complete tear-down rebuild. The Cubs were good enough in a bad division to have middle round draft picks but it will be more hit and miss since the scouting department was gutted in 2020. Player development has always been an issue for this team. Hoyer indicated that he may rely more on advanced stats than scouting eyes. But that has been the problem with stat overload on major league players (and a rotation of coaches preaching new approaches). 

The Epstein era had the Worst of Times and the Best of Times and now fades back to the Worst of Times. For diehard Cub fans, the White Sox resurgence with young, exciting players, is going to be bitter pill to swallow as the Cubs begin to wallow.

THE BIG CHANGE IN THE LITTLE SHOW

 The current MLB and minor league cooperative contract has expired. MLB is making a dramatic move on how it treats the minor league system.

In the past, the minor leagues were independent ball clubs. Minor league teams created their own leagues. Those leagues then made agreements with MLB in regard to player contracts. MLB teams draft and sign players to contracts. Those contracts are "assigned" to a minor a league club that has a working developmental agreement. Major league teams helps pay certain costs and provides staff such as head coach and pitching staff to minor league teams. Minor league teams were responsible for scheduling games, paying players, and coaching them for promotion. But not all players on a minor league roster have a major league agreement. During a season, a minor league team can "sell" or assign their player contracts to their affiliate major league team. In the past, this is how many smaller minor league owners made a good deal of money for their teams.

In 2020, the minor league system, relying on attendance as a major revenue source, shut down. 

As a result, MLB teams decided to create 60 man squads (40 man roster plus another 20 players). The teams split them into an active roster (for most of the season) and a training squad at a separate location to fill in for injured players. It did provide top prospects the opportunity to reach the major leagues quicker than the normal path.

The MLB split squad concept worked well. We thought that MLB may decide to eliminate the minor league system in favor of a modified in-house training squad. But MLB had a bigger fish to catch.

MLB had been hinting that it wanted to eliminate at least 40 minor league teams from their affiliate status with major league clubs. Minor league baseball teams, especially the lower classes in small rural markets, were upset by that proposal. 

MLBTR reports that changes for MLB and MiLB’s working partnership have been moved forward.  The agreement between the two entities recently expired, and MLB now plans to bring the minor league system under their governance. MLB took a big step towards accomplishing their goals this week.

MLB released a statement announcing their plans to transplant the minor league offices to MLB’s headquarters in New York City, per Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. Shaikin also notes that MLB is now referring to minor league clubs as “licensed affiliates.”

By joining the offices to MLB headquarters, the minors are now a branch of MLB, notes Maury Brown of Forbes. Part of this process is the hiring of Peter Freund and Trinity Sports Consultants to help MLB and their new “licensed affiliates” transition. Freund owns minor league clubs at three levels, and he is a partner with the Yankees. His broader responsibilities will be in spearheading MLB’s efforts to build a cohesive minor league system and “implementing a modern approach to player development,” per MLB’s statement.

It would seem that the old independent clubs are now being turned into minor league "MLB franchises" like your local McDonald's or Burger King. If true, MLB (and/or MLB clubs) will get to set standards and practices that all minor league teams must follow.

MLB has taken a lot of heat for their movement in this direction, specifically for insufficient minor league players salaries and the cutting of some 40 teams from the minor league system. Minor league ballplayers recently won early round of class action litigation when the Supreme Court denied MLB’s appeal, thereby granting players to move forward on their labor payroll lawsuit against Major League Baseball. Basically any minor league player since 2009 can now join the suit in suing MLB for violation of minimum wage laws. This is one of the many issues that MLB hopes to address over the coming months.

But one thing is certain: the traditional minor league system is going to drastically changed by MLB.

THE LOST SEASON

Chalk up 2020 as baseball's Lost Season.

Nothing the owners and players will do going forward will salvage the lingering bitterness of money issues in the middle of an economic crushing pandemic.

MLB will take this messed up world to screw with the game's rules and traditions. Some of the projected changes:

All teams will now use the Designated Hitter. The lack of the DH was the National League's last bastion of tradition - - - and baseball strategy of a manager thinking ahead in a game to use his bullpen and field players in a winning combination. The DH eliminates much of the manager's decision process: pinch hitting, pitching around hitters, double switches, etc.

There will be the realignment that sees each team play only within its own division and against the five teams of the corresponding division in the other league. The exact permutations of that scheduling arrangement could take a variety of forms (e.g. a pair of three-game series and one four-game series against divisional opponents, plus one four-game series against each of the five teams in the opposing league’s corresponding division), but the goal will be to generally limit travel schedules to the extent possible, not that it’s a perfect setup for all clubs. In the past many owners have sought realignment by geography to reduce travel expenses. This may be an opportunity to put that new framework in place, but to the potential cost of current rivalries.

A major change is to begin extra innings with a runner on second base in an alleged effort to avoid marathon games. (Pitchers would not be charged with an earned run if said runner scores.)  This is a terrible option. It fundamentally changes the purpose of fundamentals of the game: rewarding a team without getting a double. It penalizes a pitcher who at the start of an inning with a runner in scoring position. It also messes up the most sacred thing: statistics. A player's stats need to be fully earned.

If MLB and teams are so concerned that this short season will wreck havoc on pitching staffs because of extra inning games: allow bigger pitching rosters or ALLOW TIES. There is nothing wrong with a tie (it happens in many other sports, including the early history of baseball).
 
They have also discussed the possibility of allowing already subbed-out players to reenter the game once it reaches extras. Is this Little League??!!! It gives managers an unlimited Get Out of Jail free card for his line up mistakes.

Since the owners and players have been at odds for the entire year, it is doubtful that any meaningful agreement can be reached by the sides. Health and safety issues are still up in the air. Major league facilities were closed down within weeks after positive tests from players and staff. No one will address what will happen if a player tests positive during the season. Does he go on the DL? Does all his teammates have to be quarantined as being in contact with him? If more than 4 or 5 players test positive, will the club be suspended from play? Do they then forfeit games to get the season to the playoffs? What about umpires and coaches health issues?

There is no guarantee that MLB will get all this right, but substantially changing rules is wrong.

BEING THE FIRST

Apple's Steve Jobs once said that it is better not to be the first pioneer in a new market. It is better to be an innovative second player. The reason? The pioneer has to go through much trial and error, failures, private and public criticism for a first generation product released with flaws.Jobs was anal-retentive about his products working perfectly right out of the box. You can learn from others' mistakes.

Professional sports leagues are meeting constantly trying to figure out how to salvage part of their pandemic lost seasons. The networks, starved of new content, believe there is a huge pent-up demand from fans for live sports. The owners are gnawing their teeth to get their revenue streams back. The players are not getting paid which puts a financial strain on most of their families.

There are some league commissioners who want to "lead" the world back into the sunlight. Sports give people hope. They want bragging rights that their sport knows what is doing and doing it better.

But this is a tricky matter. Things are outside of EVERYONE's control: government, scientific, and private communities. At least 18 U.S. states have lock down orders in place which restricts any type of public gathering, including sports events. In hard hit states like New York, California and Illinois, 9 of the 30 baseball clubs (30 percent) are banned from playing games.

But baseball owners continue to make proposals to the players union to re-start the season. For two days, the parties have discussed the medical and logistics of re-opening camps and playing of games. Owners believe that they can acquire enough testing materials to have multiple player tests per week. (Critics said that would take away from critical need areas as the coronavirus continues to spread.) The issue about a player, coach, umpire or staff member testing positive is hard to grasp. The CDC states a positive test should quarantine the person for at least 14 days. Anyone with contact with the positive test subject should also be quarantined for two weeks. That means an entire team would be suspended. Some Euro soccer leagues think that they can get around the "contact" person rule by immediately testing everyone and only putting positives into isolation. But even then, it may be too late.

Stanford did a study of 5,200 baseball personnel. It found that 0.7 percent infection rate. However, the reports did not state when the tests were done and what the average was at the time of testing. Massive outbreaks in NYC and Chicago have changed the numbers. U.S. officials have been saying that the nation has not reached "the peak," and that there will be a second wave later in the year.

Several players have been vocal about "risking their lives" to play under such conditions (including a biosphere proposal where the players would be isolated from their families.) Further insult to players, owners want to change the fundamental guaranteed contract structure to a 2020 "revenue sharing" plan. Players are already taking a prorated pay cut. If there is no revenue, the players get half of nothing.

But there will be players who want to play. And there will be players who will refuse to play. If the season opens and a player refuses to report, what would happen? In the past, the player would be suspended without pay. But in this case, would owners try to void the players entire contract (to rid themselves of long term dead money?)

The NBA shut down quickly after one player tested positive. Pro basketball is a contact sport. The court is small. The virus could spread quickly through teams and staff. But the NBA is thinking of ending its season with a large, confined to one location, super-tournament.

An unemployed person who is struggling to make ends meet may wonder why sports leagues are so hell bent on returning to action when the national economy is falling apart. Simple: money. There is no income without games. Some teams, like the Mets, have been for years in a financial mess. There is a possibility that many teams could face bankruptcy.

South Korea had 10 straight days of no new domestic virus cases. It had done so well in early testing, on a massive scale, quarantine outbreaks and voluntary isolation that it has a very low fatality rate. But last weekend, one man went clubbing in Itaewon. He later tested positive. He may have infected 800 or more people. Based on the fatality rate, 20 people could die from this weekend party time. As a result, South Korea has re-closed its bars and restaurants.

What happens if a league rushes to re-open and it is a disaster? Does that turn off casual fans because of perceived reckless behavior? Are owners willing to take a public relations hit? What if re-opening spreads the disease - - - is there a liability risk as well?

That is why leagues need to be super-cautious about re-opening. Yes, the world is getting cabin fever. People need to get back to work in order to get paid. The pandemic may be more panic than scientific fact in some circles, but at this point in time no one knows the nature, extent and aftermath of the virus.

SHOW US THE MONEY

The salvage show that is the 2020 baseball non-season continues to get strange.

MLB owners had been steadfast against revenue sharing (frequent in other sports). But since the 2020 season now seems to be getting shorter and shorter (if at all), owners have gone back to the union with another re-start proposal.

Prior to his proposal, the union had agreed to a $170 million player fund if the season was canceled. It was a way to settle any litigation over payment of guaranteed contracts, etc. In addition, the plan was to prorate existing player contracts over the number of games actually played in 2020.

But the roadblock to even this negotiated solution is the crippling effect of the shutdown. Individual states have different stay-at-home orders. Science cannot keep up with virus explanations or mathematical models of the contagion. Baseball has no revenue. The golden goose, broadcast TV, has gone sterile as advertising has dried up with most businesses closed or doing poorly.

The owners now want to change the plan to share 48 percent of the "revenue" with the players once the season starts. It is a significant change to the existing baseball payroll structure; a nullification of existing 2020 contract obligations. There is always been multiple account ledgers in baseball. Most teams now consider baseball "revenue" as only what the team pulls in from local TV rights, ticket sales (approx. 30 percent) and concessions. Owners believed that national TV rights, MLB.com and the development of alternative venue sources outside the ball park do not count.

Even if both sides could agree on what counts as "revenue," the owners must have determined that it will be exceptionally low. If you have no revenue, you share zero. If you receive only a fraction of the past revenue, then the players would only get a fraction of a fraction.

National broadcasters have had cable subscriber losses and huge ad revenue declines. There is no time frame for advertisers to return to baseball. Networks will demand concessions due to revenue losses. Owners have had their accountants flip their calculators around to find that prorated 2020 contracts with no significant revenue means massive losses to the owners. It would be better not to open the season.

We know that there are several clubs that were in a financial mess before the virus crisis. The Mets have been a mess for a long time. It is so bad that a vanity couple, A-Rod and J-Lo and their investors, quickly passed at buying the Mets because the financials were so bad. Playing a season could tip one or more clubs into bankruptcy, something that MLB fears the most since it would lose control over who would join their elite ownership club.

The union had stated that it already has a revised 2020 agreement in place with the owners. The union does not have to change its position. It is the owners who are scrambling to find a way to make a profit (and lessen operating expenses - - - salaries, travel costs, etc.).

The Illinois governor has hinted that the "peak" of infections may last through June 15. That means Illinois will remain in lock-down for another month. That would push the Cubs and White Sox back to a late July season start, if at all.An 80 game schedule turns into 65 games.  The longer the wait, the closer it is to a point of no return.

It is assumed that there a pent up demand from fans for baseball's return. But I am not so sure. People have been living without "live" sports for two months. They have found other things to occupy their time, including parents who are working from home AND trying to teach their children homework lessons since virtual classrooms are nearly non-existent in elementary schools. Steaming services have been doing well, but there has been a reported peak in new subscribers and a slow down in viewers. Cabin fever has turned into media burnout.

Even if baseball returns, there is no guarantee that fans will jump on board. There is no guarantee that fans will come back to the ball parks. There is no guarantee that TV ratings will be anything close to respectable numbers. The great unknown is harsh. The epidemic is going to gut the middle class; mom and pop businesses that have been closed may never re-open. People want to go back to work, but cannot. People are confused, angry and in choking debt. A surge a bankruptcies will happen. People will not have the disposable income (the shock of the value of their retirement account balances).

It is still a 50-50 chance that this year there will be any professional baseball.

QUARANTINED

The "leak" that MLB was kicking around the idea of playing all the 2020 season in a quarantined bubble in Arizona had many people wondering if it is even possible.

The idea is to have all 30 teams live and play in Arizona. No long distant travel. Half of the leagues have spring training facilities in Arizona.

All the teams would be quarantined in their hotels. There would be no fans at any games. The players would be shuttled to parks and hotels.

It is like the players would be inmates in professional baseball jail.

If the idea takes root, a late May early June start was mentioned in reports. That would mean baseball could be the first professional sport to return to action. It would also mean that players would be isolated from the public and their families for 4 months or more.

The reason is simple: medical experts believe there will be no vaccine for COVID-19 for at least a year. Then whether it is effective treatment is uncertain as the virus will continue to mutate.

The players want to play. The players do not get paid if they do not play. The players want to get paid.

The owners want to play games. The owners do not get any revenue without games. The owners want to get paid.

Even if this is a feasible solution, the human cost could be great. For example, will a veteran baseball player who has already made his multi-millions want to stay away from his family during a pandemic? Maybe not.

What happens when the first isolated player comes down with the virus? Is the whole team shut down? What about the hotel workers and team staff? Are they also isolated? The problem with any quarantine is that there will always be some outside contact. Vendors have to supply the hotel. Teams come and go on buses. The locker room is being used by three teams a day. Players will not be in hazmat suits 24/7.

What happens when a player gets injured? Are teams going to start the isolation with their full 40 man rosters? So teams will be paying players not on the active 26 man rosters?  If a player gets injured, he will have to leave confinement to get treatment. He may not be allowed back into the quarantine area because he could have possibly exposed in the outside world. Does the 15 day disabled list turn into a 30 day (15 off and 15 in self-isolation)?

Owners project that 30 percent of their revenue is from fan attendance. If there are no fans, will the players take a 30 percent pay cut? The players are upset with service time issues. A pay cut on top of that would be hard to take.

Arizona summers are hot. Surface of the sun hot. If you have 30 teams trying to play 15 games a day, where will they play? There is only one domed stadium in Phoenix. Night games at spring training facilities? West coast time night games may not cut it for East Coast television broadcasts.

Will MLB force feed new rule changes under the guise of unique circumstances? For example, the runner at second to start the 10th inning. Or not having any extra inning games (allowing ties). Or having a 10 run slaughter rule after 5 innings.

MLB is thinking of ways to salvage its season.  But as the days and weeks drag on in shuttered businesses, work at home environments and daily death tolls reported on newscasts, people may slowly lose interest in rebooting any professional sports season.

EU TU, SEASON?

As most of the world is in lock down, MLB, the union, players, agents and media pundits are kicking the can (the 2020 season) down the road.

The owners want the most games for the revenue.
The players want the most games for service time toward free agency.
The fans want the most games for enjoyment.

But how many games will constitute a valid season?

If the shutdown continues through May, is four months of games enough to have a legitimate champion? An 108 game schedule (2/3 season) seems reasonable.

But it gets tricky after that point.

How many is too little?

You have 30 teams, 15 per division. In a shortened season, would it not be prudent to keep the games within your league?

If so, each club has 14 opponents. You would think each owner would want at least one "home and home" series. Three games two times 14 equals 84 games. Is this the bare minimum?

What if it a shortened two game series per club? 56 games played seems awfully light.

Some would say 81 games, half of a regular season, is the cut off point. There is some speculation that a drawn out wave of coronavirus spread across the US could shut down travel and gatherings throughout the summer.

Some have proposed that you can fatten the number of games played by increasing doubleheaders. But even with expanded rosters, multiple double headers during a week will grind pitching staffs down to the bone. Is it worth the risk for the long term viability of the game?

These are important questions for baseball, but for also other industries trying to cope with the uncertainty of this situation. As we now know, baseball is not an essential service. 

THE TEAR DOWN PROJECT

The baseball world was shocked when the Red Sox dismissed President of Baseball Operations Dave Dombrowski less than a year after winning the World Series.

The reasoning for the termination of the man who helped produce a championship is vague. There is speculation that there was a rift between baseball operations and ownership/business side of the organization. There is speculation that the Red Sox are saddled with big money contracts that can quickly turn into dead money deals. There is always the rivalry with the Yankees, who have overcome 26 injuries to runaway with the AL East title.

Ricketts fancies himself as a follower of the Red Sox baseball operations. He wants to create an outside venue for fans (and profit) like Boston did around Fenway Park. The Cubs also have a split organizational structure: one baseball side and one business side. It has been clear for years that the Cubs baseball side has been at odds with the business side over payroll and spending issues.

Theo Epstein is also sitting on several potential dead money deals with the second highest payroll in the majors. He also has brought in many new players who have not helped the team surge into first place. The team is currently floundering in second place in the NL Central and losing a grip on the second wild card.

Someone will be the scapegoat. He was chosen last off-season: Joe Maddon. Maddon did not get a contract extension because the team does not want him (and his $6 million salary). Theo has been rotating coaches in Maddon's dugout to little success. Four batting coaches in four years has not improved the offense. Pitching has become erratic at best. Baseball is trending toward management hiring cheap, inexperienced and controllable managers. Maddon does not fit that role.

The farm system has not produced any sustainable help for this team. In fact, the farm system rates near the bottom because Theo has not drafted and developed one starting pitcher in his tenure with Chicago. This major flaw has a cascade affect on the team and its financing as he paid dearly to acquire pitching. With little help in the minors available, this off-season will come after a disappointing season. What will happen?

It is possible that the roster will have to be blown up. But it would have to be a dramatic change in attitude because Theo overvalues "his guys." He does not trade "his guys." He always talks about his championship core of starters. But many of these core players are breaking down with injuries, underperformance or pending free agency. The farm system is devoid of talent to make quality trades. Trades would have to be made from the current 40 man roster.

The current roster is filled with platoon situations, utility players and aging veterans. The starting rotation will be Lester, Hendricks, Darvish and Quintana. Hamels will not be re-signed. The bullpen will have to be retooled as well.

Your 2020 outfield appears to be Schwarber, Happ/Almora and Heyward. You cannot trade Heyward's contract. Schwarber has turned into an Adam Dunn DH. Happ and Almora are too inconsistent at the plate to have a .225 platoon in CF. Can you trade Happ and/or Almora? Yes, but they would get little in return because they are not proven starters. Can you trade Schwarber? Yes, but a DH/LF will not bring any great return.

Your 2020 infield appears to be Bryant, Baez, Russell/Garcia/Kemp/Hoerner and Rizzo. Rizzo is tradeable but lost in first base depth throughout the league. No one is desperate for a new first baseman. Bryant and Baez are good trade chips. Bryant, if healthy, could bring in 5 players in return (including quality minor league prospects). Baez could bring in a good haul, too.  But the one who could bring in the most MLB ready starters is Contreras because a power hitting, good catcher is very hard to find. Could the Cubs have a Caritini/Lecroy platoon in 2020? Yes, but its production would pale without Contreras.

If the 2019 Cubs get brushed aside like last season, then wholesale changes should be on the way. The business side is going to push hard for cost reductions since the new Cubs network launch is going to be a financial dud. If the Cubs management believe this current team is still a championship caliber one, then nothing will change and the final result will be disappointing fans. Fans could take trading away the heart of your core players if you got exciting young talent in return (since the championship is still in everyone's back pocket.) Otherwise, this is a slow and painful death to the bottom of the standings.

CONTRACT EXTENSIONS

 Everyone is trying to figure out the dynamics of a weak free agent market and the rash of player extensions. It may be a simple conversion of complex rational behaviors.

First, for the past several years, front offices have gone off the deep end on Big Data. Teams have figured out new statistics on spin rates, hit ball velocity and motion capture mechanics. Teams can break down their players into computer data. Now teams have more stats (good and bad) on their players to justify lower arbitration offers or free agency passes on veterans who used to be paid on past performance.

Second, while baseball is still generating record revenues, there are storm clouds on the horizon as attendance is down, TV ratings are down, TV advertising (and associated broadcast fees) have hit a plateau and demographics are trending to age out. Kids today would rather spend four hours playing Fortnite than watching a baseball game. In order to keep profit margins, teams are relying more on young, cheap and controllable players to fill major league rosters.

Third, the age of the super-agent is fading away. In the last two off-seasons, agents have missed the market trends, especially for the second tier free agents. Teams were armed with weaponized stats proving that older veterans decline in value after age 30. Teams were only going to pay for future performance, hence lower average annual salaries and contract years. Bryce Harper and Manny Machado got their deals because they were both 26, in their prime production years. Other veterans, including pitchers, still sit on the side lines without a job.

Fourth, veteran players and union officials are mad about the free agency market. They whisper collusion but cannot prove it. They are thinking about striking when the current collective bargaining agreement is over. But the prospect of a strike or a lock out does not sit well with a majority of baseball players. Hence, the surge in player extensions (usually at team friendly rates.)

Mid-February  25 contract extensions have been signed, notably by many young players including Ronald Acuña Jr., Blake Snell,  and Eloy Jiménez, who had yet to have a major league at-bat.  Acuña Jr. and Snell were last year’s Rookie of the Year and Cy Young Award winners while Jiménez could be this year’s ROY.

Acuña, Snell, and Jiménez’s teams locking them up this early in their careers has a two-fold effect: given how good they are (or, in Jiménez’s case, could be), they stand to potentially set salary records going through arbitration. Acuña, for example, was set to become eligible for arbitration for the first time in 2022. His extension is for eight years and $100 million, meaning he won’t become a free agent until after the 2026 season at the earliest. He will earn $15 million in 2022, and $17 million from 2023-26.

Compare that to Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado (who also signed an extension). Arenado earned a $26 million salary going through his final year of arbitration eligibility. Arenado avoided all the potential drama and cross currents of a broken free agent system by taking the familiar guaranteed money of the Rockies. There is some value in the stability of staying with your current team (professionally and family situations).

Agent Scott Boras, who has had many clients getting paid less than he projected, is not happy with these young prospect extensions:

"Great young players are getting what I call snuff contracts. And a snuff contract is that they’re trying to snuff out the market. They know the player is a great player, and he’s exhibited very little performance. So they’re coming to him at 20 and 21, and I’m going to snuff out your ability to move, to go anywhere, to do anything, and your value. And I’m going to pay you maybe 40 cents on the dollar to do it. What’s my risk?"

Ken Rosenthal recent reported that the players believe team representatives are even circumventing the player and his agent by appealing to the players’ families, especially for players with poor and/or Latin American backgrounds. That may help explain why many young players are taking the guaranteed money.  Contract negotiations do not happen in a vacuum. A multimillion dollar guaranteed contract is life changing for most families.

By taking themselves out of the picture, Acuña and Snell cannot set the bar for the industry for players of their caliber, age, and service time, which makes agents jobs much harder to push the boundaries of free agent money. Craig Kimbrel and Dallas Keuchel have been caught on the other side looking in as the season started. By testing the free agent waters, Kimbrel and Keuchel have been swept away by teams signing younger players earlier.

But there still are puzzling aspects to contract extensions. The Cubs extended utility infielder David Bote for 5 years, $15 million. Bote is not even a starting player! He is a career .240 hitter. His career WAR is 1.0, not even the level of a AAAA replacement. Yet, Bote went to management and begs for some job security. The 24th man on the roster got his wish with a cash strapped club paying him five times what he was projected to earn in the next 5 years. Teams can still spend oddly in this new era of extensions.

TILT

The Cubs have started the urgency of the 2019 campaign like a bunch of Keystone cops falling over each other. It started with horrible pitching, then moved on to terrible fielding, then moved on to lack of hitting, and finally to questionable base running. After another bullpen meltdown, Jon Lester claimed that the team feels "the pressure" from the front office.

Yes, Theo Epstein was mad at the end of last season. He wants the players to take accountability for their performance. Prospects are no longer potential players. He wants results. Now.

But in reality, Epstein is both diverting the blame and redirecting his anger against ownership. He created this roster of underperforming, overpaid pitchers. He created the atmosphere of dread by not extending Joe Maddon's contract. He overspent on players in the past two seasons which gave him no payroll flexibility in this off-season to fix any glaring problems.

In all levels of the organization, the Cubs have fallen flat on their faces.

The fan angst will boil with another Yu Darvish start. He says he is fine; his pitching coach thinks there is a problem with his pelvic tilt; or vice versa. The embrace of big data in pitching (the
Cubs have a motion capture system where each pitcher in spring training threw a "base line" delivery) is further messing with the mental aspects of the pitcher's routine. Carl Edwards suddenly showed up in the first series with a new (illegal) delivery. There is no confidence that the coaching staff has any real insight or control of the staff.

But things get stranger. In the midst of the losing streak, David Bote suddenly gets a five year, $15 million extension. WTF? Bote got an extension before Schwarber, Almora, Baez or Contreras? Bote is not even a STARTER. Why is he getting a raise five times more than he would normally earn? Is Theo a spendthrift? Or was this giving ownership a quick middle finger? Clearly, the front office is also on tilt with this extension.

The team is playing bad, the front office has no answers, and the Brewers are off to a hot start. This all plays into the gloom and doom of the season opening 9 game road trip.

THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT

Last season, Joe Maddon used 152 different line ups.

He used to text his players the night before the game what the line up would be.

This year, he says he will change this routine. He will now text line ups for the entire series. But this does not mean the Cubs are changing to a set, regular line up.

Yahoo Sports writes that that is not going to happen. Maddon doesn't want a stable lineup with 7-8 regulars playing every day. Theo Epstein doesn't want it. Jed Hoyer doesn't want it. The "Geek Squad" doesn't recommend it. And the roster doesn't allow for it. In theory.

If the Cubs have a 3-game set beginning on a Monday night in boring ole St. Louis, for example, Maddon or new bench coach Mark Loretta plan to text players on that Sunday night to let them know what the projected lineups would be for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The whole "set lineup" narrative got a lot of traction last year as an ill-informed potential reason for why the Cubs lineup may have struggled or why some young players took a step back. It picked up steam the day after the Cubs were stunned in that National League Wild-Card game. Some players have quietly complained to management that they do not like the day to day uncertainty of the line up.

"Part of it is developmental, part of it is match up. Some of it's trying to put you in a situation to make you look better. It takes time for young players to understand it. I think veterans get that a little bit better. Even though a veteran might want to play more often, he understands his role may be in this and it might be the best thing for him. It just takes time," Maddon said.

Part of the problem is that Maddon likes a roster with players playing multiple positions. This gives him more flexibility to find better hitter match ups. But playing multiple players out of their natural position does hurt their defensive metrics. Last season the Cubs took a large set back in the team's overall defense.

Also, the Cubs still do not have a traditional lead off hitter who can get on base for the run producers in the second, third and clean up spots. Stat gurus now quibble with the notion of the old school lead off hitter being important in line up construction, but baserunners are still key in even a home run centric era.  

Players are creatures of habit. If they know they are going to bat second every time they play in the field, it is one less thing to worry about. But Maddon has his players batting anywhere from lead off to 9th. 

The Cubs do have fielders that deserve a regular, everyday spot in a set line up: Rizzo, Bryant, Contreras, Baez and possibly Zobrist (if Russell does not make the club). The rest of the line up can be in a regular platoon situation.

For example:

1. ______________

2. Bryant 3B

3. Rizzo 1B

4. Baez SS/2B

5. Contreras C

6. ______________
7. ______________
8. ______________

If Russell stays, he is a shortstop batting near #8, possibly sharing time with Bote.
Happ and Almora could platoon in CF.
Heyward, depending on his start, would be in RF platooning with Zobrist or even Bryant.
Schwarber has LF to lose, but he could platoon with Happ and Zobrist as well.

But you can set a "regular" portion of the line up (two through five) quite easily, but Maddon is stubborn in his ways.

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.

NEW METRICS PLAYER VALUE

The Machado rumors heated up with contradictory reports on the White Sox latest offer
(is it 7 years or 8 years? $200 million or $225 million?)

I read an interesting follow up article on the new aspect of the off-season: "player values."
Player agents are using the old system to value their clients: WAR from past seasons
was worth $8 to 10 million.

Teams have economists look at a new stat: player revenue generation. How much more
revenue does a free agent bring to the team? Teams found it is only about $1.5 million/WAR.

The great divide in valuation is probably better expressed as what a player brings to the table.
If a team is about winning, great. But most teams are now about making money because of
high debt loads and investors wanted return on their investment (dividends).

A team like the White Sox could get a substantial revenue jump with signing Machado.
If he draws in another 5,000 fans a home game, that would be at least $20 million in new revenue.
But that may not be enough to get his $30 million/season asking price. If he draws 10,000 more
fans per game, then he works as a profit center and a good team investment.

Teams like the Nationals are already at their local revenue ceiling. Signing Harper would not
increase the top line at all. How many new season ticket holders will there be if Harper re-signs?
Not many.

This is why teams are more focused on touting and developing their minor league players.
When they get to the majors, they are paid a league minimum. For home games, it costs
the team about $6,800. If a rookie can generate enough buzz to get more than 140 new fans
through the gate, the team is making positive revenue growth at minimum cost.

Teams are now looking at two component for player value. First, past performance metrics.
Second, cost-benefit analysis on whether the player will enhance local revenues. The latter seems
to be gathering more traction in front offices.

PAINTED INTO A CORNER

Have you noticed that the Cubs have not been mentioned in any
trade rumors or free agent negotiations?

I heard last week on the radio that one reason may be that
Theo "borrowed" from this year's baseball budget to pay for
Darvish, Morrow and Chatwood. So that may be a bitter pill
on any future spending because it was already spent.

Plus, Darvish, Morrow and Chatwood represent $41.5 million
in 2019 payroll. Add in Heyward, it jumps to 61.5 million
or almost a third of 2019 total payroll budget.

The Cubs are on the hook for $158 million on 13 signed players.
The Cubs still have to sign 27 other players to make the 40 man
roster - - - with some expensive arbitration players like Bryant
in the mix.

The projected salaries for the arb players:

• Kris Bryant (3.171) – $12.4MM
• Kyle Hendricks (4.081) – $7.6MM
• Javier Baez (3.089) – $7.1MM
• Addison Russell (3.167) – $4.3MM
• Kyle Schwarber (3.086) – $3.1MM
• Mike Montgomery (3.089) – $3.0MM
• Carl Edwards Jr. (2.134) – $1.4MM

That totals at least $38.9 million. I think Bryant will get more.

That leaves another 20 players, even at the minimum of $555,000
or $11.1 million creating a current projected payroll of
$208.00 which is dead on the luxury tax number.

This is the corner that Theo has painted himself in.

And last week, he admitted that 2019 is going to be difficult.

On Thursday, Epstein  called the 2019 season a year of ‘‘reckoning’’ for the organization.

As the SunTimes reported,  Epstein  made it clear that, barring moves that free up significant payroll space, the Cubs won’t be adding a nine-figure commitment to their books for the fourth time in five years.

The big, problematic contracts with large balances are clear:   Jason Heyward’s $184 million deal  Yu Darvish’s $126 million contract, and  the $25.5 million owed to right-hander Tyler Chatwood the next two years.

‘‘You can’t just keep shopping without making things fit for your roster and for your payroll and the situation that you’re in,’’ Epstein said. ‘‘I understand the desire for a big name every winter, and there are winters where we do acquire a big name and there will be winters where we don’t acquire a big name. I don’t know what category this winter will fall into yet, but there’s a chance that it’s going to be a winter where we don’t acquire a big name from outside the organization.’’

Nothing is more telling that the Cubs are up against the payroll wall than:

1. Having to trade Smyly's $7 million contract in order to exercise the $20 million option on Hamels.

2. Not having $4 million extra to spend to re-sign Chavez to stabilize a bullpen that will now not have Morrow at the start of the season (he had late elbow surgery in November after sitting out the second half of the season).

Other media outlets outside of Chicago have reported that other teams have heard that the Cubs do not have money to spend to sign top tier free agents. 

Adding to the problem is that the Cubs have very little trade capital. The Cubs farm system is near the lower ranks in MLB. On a scouting scale of 20-80, the Cubs best prospect rates 50. And the Cubs best prospects are at the Class A level. The only trading chips then are on the major league roster, but those candidates (besides Baez) had very down years.

The Cubs overspent in the past years after they tanked to stockpile high draft choices. The plan worked and a championship was won. But the plan was unsustainable when ownership was directing massive resources ($750 million) on non-baseball improvements and business enterprises. The Cubs team is left high and dry with their old roster and bad contract decisions.

 

2019 will be a year of transition. The Cubs players could rebound to have a chance for another championship. Or the team could see their championship window shut. There are no guaranteed dynasties in sports even if you throw a lot of money at it . . .  just think of the 1985 Bears.

THE CALL FOR A SET LINE UP

The off-season begins in earnest with option calls and exclusive negotiation periods for free agents.

Roster rebuilds are the bread and butter of winter work for teams.

The Cubs have built a roster of utility players, i.e. players who can play multiple positions, In the past, utility players were bench substitutes, pinch hitters and Sunday starters. But with the new religion of advanced stats and match-ups, lefty righty, situational OBP, shift and base running at end of games becomes more important than having regular starters and bench players.

Joe Maddon loves multi-use guys. He likes to mix and match lineups to opposing starting pitchers. ESPN Chicago notes that in 2018, Joe Maddon wrote out 152 different lineups in 163 games (and that's not even factoring in the pitcher's spot). That's a bump up from 2017 (143 different lineups) and 2016 (130 lineups in the regular season of the championship year).

How does that relate to the top contenders around the league?
The last four World Series teams (2017 Astros, 2018 Red Sox and the 2017-18 Dodgers) averaged 145 different lineups per regular season. All 2018 MLB playoff teams (excluding Cubs) averaged 129.1 separate lineups throughout the regular season. The Dodgers tallied 155 different lineups in 2018 and 147 in 2017 and they made it to the World Series both seasons. The Astros posted 144 new lineups each of the last two regular seasons while the Red Sox were at 134 lineups and the Brewers and Yankees sat at 137 lineups in 2018.

It seems that all teams are  mixing and matching lineups. Front offices are living in a  world of extreme platooning, bullpening and shifting which equates to a lot of different lineups.

If the rest of the league has adopted this philosophy, why would the Cubs be any different?

In his post season press conference, Theo Epstein indicated that some players told him they would like less daily lineup shakeups. A regular lineup is what they felt would be good for them.

 If the Cubs do not make major personnel moves this off-season (due to budgetary and luxury tax restraints), then the only major change would be how the players on the roster will be used in 2019. A regular, set lineup may be that major move.

In the past, starters earned "their job" and kept their position on the field until injury or demotion. Players in the minors worked hard to "earn" a position on a 25 man roster. It is that competition and fear of losing one's spot that keeps a player focused on playing hard and performing well. But when you have a dozen position players vying for 8 daily spots with a manager who likes to mix and match, you know you will play most of the time (but not necessarily a complete game at a time.)

Professional athletes are creatures of habit. They have set pregame routines (almost superstitions). They want to know their role so they can adjust their play to match the manager/team's expectations. There are two components of knowing your position: the place you play in the field and the number spot in the batting order. Most baseball players are more concerned about the latter - - - because where you hit in the order can affect your mental approach in an at-bat.

For example, a lead off hitter has to have the mentality of getting on base so the heart of the order can drive him home. A free swinging lead off hitter cannot "set the table." When the Cubs had Alfonso Soriano hitting lead off, it was not because it make sense but because Soriano demanded the spot because he felt he would see more fastballs he could hit.

Maddon only used the same lineup a total of 5 times in 2018.

Some believe the causes of this non-regular line up were:
1.  Bryant's shoulder injury became an issue and he was out for an extended period of time.
2. Russell's nagging injuries affected his hitting and fielding in such a manner that he needed more rest.
3. Heyward's defense in RF was more important than his hitting (which then improved under Chili Davis securing more playing time.)
4. Contreras' slumping season at the plate caused him to slowly drop down the order.
5. Maddon likes to play favorites with his veterans like Zobrist, giving him more playing time than with Happ or Almora.
6. And the front office pushing Schwarber as a pure hitter so he had to play LF to get at-bats.
7. Maddon's odd approach of putting struggling hitters (including Rizzo) in the lead off spot. (The Soriano philosophy).

Granted, the Cubs won 95 games with this carousel approach. But in the second half of the season, hitting became a real problem and some players may believe it was because of the daily changes in the lineup.

The platoon situation works if you have multiple players who can evenly perform at a high situational level (righty-lefty matchups). But if your roster is filled with .240 hitting utility players, then it really does not matter which ones start a game. The Cubs multiple position player depth is not the same as having a deep bench where the bench player is as good as a starter who earns that position. The bench or role players on the club are now pretty obvious: Schwarber, Almora, Happ, Zobrist, Russell, LaStella, Heyward, Bote. You could start a game with these 8 players, but why would you?

Which players have "earned" a regular starting position? Those players who do not have enough fatal flaws to become a platoon player:

Rizzo at 1B. Bryant at 3B. Baez at 2B/SS.

If a team objectively self-scouts, you can see the need to upgrade all of the other positions with a full time player.  That may be why fans are anxious to see if the Cubs will legitimately go after Bryce Harper and/or Manny Machado. Those players would be penciled in to start 154 games.

Even if the front office is handcuffed into keeping its existing roster, spring training would be an open battle field to determine who will be the starting 8. If Bote can hit enough, that would move Bryant to the outfield. If Russell can regain his ability to hit the ball with power and RBI numbers, Baez can be set at second. Do you trust Almora to be your regular center fielder? Will Heyward be content being only a late inning defensive substitute? This is the perplexing problem the Cubs must address this off-season as Epstein was not happy with the direction of the club as it finished 2018.

Fans are like the players when it comes to a set lineup. They pay to see the best players on their team. If there is a set lineup, they are almost guaranteed to see their favorite player play.

SPEED BUMP

The Commissioner wants the game to speed up. He is foaming at the mouth to do something to get players to move the game along. The driving force behind this "speed up play" is not to make the game better or more enjoyable, but to appease advertisers and to try to get attention-deficit kids to watch games.

Both reasons are not good enough to change the fundamental concepts of the game.

The Sun-Times quotes Cubs pitcher Jon Lester among the high-profile players who don’t like baseball’s latest efforts to speed up the pace of play. “It’s a terrible idea,”  he said. “It’s all terrible.”

On Monday, MLB announced rules and policy changes that include speeding up pitching changes and, most conspicuously, limiting mound visits without a pitching change to six per nine innings. That includes visits from teammates on the field, including the catcher.

There is no penalty at this point for a seventh visit; the umpire is simply charged with disallowing it.

“I get the mound-visit thing,” said Lester,  “But also, what people [who] aren’t in the game don’t understand is there’s so much technology now, there’s so many cameras on the field, that every stadium now has a camera on the catcher’s crotch. So they know the signs before you even get there.

“Now we’ve got Apple watches. Now we’ve got people being accused of sitting in a tunnel [trying to steal signs]. There’s reasons behind the mound visit. He’s not just coming out there asking what time I’m going to dinner or ‘How you feeling?’ There’s reasons behind everything, and I think if you take that away, it takes away from the beauty of the baseball game.”

Baseball is a game played at its own pace. There is no shot clock or timer. Games can last two hours to two days (with rain delays). 

Baseball officials have been kicking around ideas of a pitch clock to make pitchers throw quicker. Pitchers say if they are not ready to throw (with a proper grip and sign) then it become dangerous. Officials even thought about limiting the number of pitching substitutions per game, but that creates a roster nightmare and could induce injuries and longer games if a manager cannot pull an ineffective pitcher.  Some teams are thinking about bringing back golf carts to shuttle relievers from the bullpen. But will that really speed up play?  Others indicated that stop the practice of the reliever or any pitcher getting 8 warm up pitches at the start of their inning. But again, warm up tosses are important for the pitcher's health.

Besides, there have been plenty of pitchers like Mark Buerhle who could command a game, pitch quickly, and finish under three hours.  A pitcher and catcher pregame strategy session on how to pitch the game is a fundamental key for efficient game play.

Probably the biggest time waster in the game is not discussed very much: it is the batters constantly adjusting their armor, gloves and caps between every pitch. If you want to speed up play, once a batter gets into the batter's box for the first pitch, there would be no time out (unless there is a physical reason such as dirt or bug in a batter's eye.)  If a batter steps out of the box, the pitcher can throw a pitch for a strike. Stop the batter from taking time after every pitch would speed up the game, somewhat. At best, 20 minutes?

Replay decisions are only supposed to last 5 minutes, but sometimes take 15. 

The advertising time between innings will not change, and that is something that can be controlled easier than player conduct on the field. Teams want advertisers to fill time slots. Teams also want long enough breaks between innings so fans can feel they can go to concession stands.

MLB is wrong to try to pin their perceived problems on slow pitching. The game was not made to be a robotic video game. The ebb and flow of the game makes each contest unique.

Besides, with the push for sports gambling in professional sports, MLB may follow the NBA blueprint to allow their spectators to "bet" on each play. In order for that to occur, there needs to be some time between the last pitch and the next one in order to place bets. 

As some veterans have said in the past, if there is an issue on field of play, let the players resolve it among themselves.