THE REHAB TOUR

I was reading comments on a Cubs fan blog, and there is a growing consensus is
that the Cubs organization is quickly falling back into the Tribune ways, i.e.
a crappy organization. When the Trib spent, it was spent unwisely. When the Trib wanted to sell the team, it went small market.

The penny pinching, small market mentality has now seeped to the surface.
Fans were promised a dynasty now see the window closing rapidly.
They are realizing that Ricketts spent all his time and resources building
outside of Wrigley Field than building a second championship team.
The core talent that Theo touts may not be as impressive as the 1929 Yankees.
And the minor league system is now horrible, with no help in sight.

I think fans are getting mad because the Cubs are not tied to talks to ANY notable
free agent, first tier or second tier. They can't understand why they let their best
relief pitcher, Chavez, walk over $4 million when Theo spouted off that performance
now counts more than potential (we are looking at Chatwood's $36 million contract).

The baseball world still cannot figure out why the Cubs had to trade Smyly and his $7 million contract in order to re-sign Hamels. Why did the Cubs pay Smyly millions in 2018 just to rehab his arm? He would have done it without being on a major league DL. But he was "an asset," or "insurance policy" for the rotation in 2019. But in reality, he seemed to be an expensive budget line item.

We have not heard any updates on Bryant's shoulder. If we compare it to the Bears' Trubisky shoulder watch, it seems more grim. Trubisky was day to day with an apparent shoulder bruise or strain. He is expected to be back for the Rams contest in 8 days. Bryant sat out 6 weeks and came back the same - - - unable to fully follow through on his swing. Is there something more on Bryant's shoulder that we do not know about? 

Running through 3 hitting and pitching coaches in 3 years seems to be counterproductive - - - will the new coaches be able to improve underperforming players like a magician? Or is bringing in new coaches merely an illusion to cover-up the mistakes of the front office?


Is 2019 going to be the Rehab Tour? Russell, Chatwood, Darvish, Edwards, Bryant,
Schwarber, Contreras - - -  are they all going to rebound to have career years??

WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT

Even with a daily dose of Deadspin commentary and a few photographs, the callers on local sports talk radio on the evening commute made it clear that the situation at Wrigley on Opening Night was worse than previously reported.

The Cubs continue to sugar coat the situation as being opening night jitters, construction delays and that it will have fixed for tonight's game with portable toilets.

And the city officials have been silent on the issues that plagued the fans.

As more than one caller said it was a health and safety hazard. The concourse was packed for the entire night with people not moving, a crushing situation. The lines backed up into the stands, causing many sections to be blocked from viewing the game. The men's restroom floor was a soaked with standing urine. People began urinating in cups and discharging themselves on the walls in the concourse. Wrigley was a crowded and open sewer.  If you were any other Chicago business, you would have been red tagged, closed down, and not allowed to open for business.

As other callers stated, this is more evidence of the incompetence of Cubs management. Half of the restrooms were going to be out of commission before the season opened so management should have known there would be an issue for 35,000 fans (the Cubs knew the attendance in advance of opening the gates.) When the upper deck restrooms failed, the Cubs did nothing except adding to the confusion by directing patrons down the jammed and stopped ramps to the lower level two functioning restrooms. It was so bad, callers indicated that they stood in line for one to one and half HOURS. Many of them just quit and left the park to use facilities of neighboring businesses.

The Cubs said that once the bleachers are finished, the restroom capacity will be expanded under the left field area. But that is no comfort for a couple of callers who said they were very concerned about bringing their young children to tonight's game. No one knows whether the Cubs had a top to bottom Hazmat cleaning of the concourses and restrooms. Parents are concerned for the safety and welfare of bringing their children to Wrigley Field. There is no public relations spin today that can change that objective parental concern. Considering the Cubs fan price index puts the cost for a family of four to see a game at more than $300 (third in the MLB in cost), it is probably not worth subjecting children to sardine concourses, urine soaked restrooms and people peeing on stadium walls.

The Cubs also stated that they don't think it will be a problem tonight because they expect less people. But that is not the point. Even if they put in portable toilets inside Wrigley (which are actually made to be outside for ventilation purposes), the damage has been done. The team touted the improvements as enhancing "the fan experience." It was a total fail in the national spotlight.

Neither Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, Crane Kenney or Tom Ricketts have stepped up to the podium and admitted this failure of epic proportions. This shows the problem in how the Cubs are organized: Epstein is in charge of the baseball team while Kenney is in charge of the business side. But the business of the Cubs is baseball which includes ticket sales, concessions and fan service. In essence, no one is in charge of this mess. The idea to focus the night on how great the Jumbotron looked while looking away as their customers waded their way through urine soaked concourses is going to negatively affect any future fan goodwill.

PUT THE HAMMERS DOWN

The Wrigley renovation debacle just got worse, and Tom Ricketts himself is to blame
for allegedly making inflammatory statements against the rooftoppers at a
Cubs convention.  Recall, many rooftop businesses have sued the city for violating due process
and the landmark ordinance in approving the 7 signs and new scoreboards.

Now, Crain's reports today that several rooftops sued the Cubs for breach of
contract, including the provision in the settlement against disparaging remarks
by either side, so there may be a construction injunction in offing soon, as well
as some triple damages federal claims to hit the Cubs in the wallet:

Crain's reports that two rooftop businesses overlooking Wrigley Field  sued the Chicago Cubs and owner Ricketts in federal court, accusing them of attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, as well as breach of contract, defamation, consumer fraud and deceptive practices.
The lawsuit is the latest legal skirmish in a long-running battle between the Ricketts family, which plans major renovations to the historic ballpark and the surrounding neighborhood, and owners of nearby buildings who believe plans to erect advertising signs will unlawfully obstruct their views. It is the second recent lawsuit to allege the Cubs are shifting planned outfield signs to block the views of rooftops that refuse to sell their properties to the Ricketts family.

The present contractual agreement states that the Cubs are prevented from erecting "windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the rooftops," the copy of one contract reads. In return, rooftops businesses pay the team 17 percent of their pre-tax revenues. The Cubs argue that the outfield signs constitute an "expansion" of Wrigley Field that is allowed under the terms of rooftop contracts.

The new suit by the right field rooftoppers seeks an injunction to block the Cubs' most recent plan for signage, as well as unspecified monetary damages. The rooftop owners argue that their 20 year 2004 settlement agreement requires an unobstructed view of Wrigley as part of the revenue sharing deal. Now, the owners believe that the Ricketts are using the new signage to destroy their businesses, and burn down the value of their businesses while trying to buy up the properties around
Wrigley. In other words, the Ricketts are attempting to bully the rooftop owners into selling their properties at fire sale prices. Ricketts family just concluded purchasing several properties with rooftops.

“The Cubs decided to put up giant signs to block the rooftops halfway into a 20-year contract to guarantee the rooftops' unobstructed views,” the rooftop owners attorney said in a statement. “The Cubs are blocking the rooftops that refused to sell their properties for a fraction of market value, and who refused to participate in a price-fixing scheme the Cubs demanded to raise ticket prices. It's unfortunate the rooftops have been forced to take legal action, but they're confident the legal system will protect their rights.” 

But the boiling point has come recently with Ricketts actions. Crain's reports  the plaintiffs accuse the Cubs of anti-competitive conduct, as well as defaming the rooftop owners by accusing them of stealing the Cubs' product. The rooftop plaintiffs  allege that after the Cubs announced their seven-sign plan, they met with Crane Kenney in July 2014 and offered to sell the rooftops at fair market value, according to the complaint. In offering a much smaller figure, Kenney told McCarthy “once we put up the signs, you don't have a rooftop business,” according to the complaint.

The complaint said that in offering a “grossly unfair” price, Kenney asked the rooftop owners: “How hard is it going to be to sell tickets when you have no glimpse of Wrigley Field?” Kenney added, according to the complaint: “Whatever (rooftop businesses) we don't buy, we're going to block.”

The complaint also references a statement by Tom Ricketts at the 2014 Cubs Convention, which the owners believe was defamatory.

“So you're sitting in your living room watching, say, Showtime. All right, you're watching 'Homeland.' You pay for that channel, and then you notice your neighbor looking through your window watching 'Homeland.'" Ricketts told fans, according to the complaint. "And then you turn around, and they're charging the other neighbors to sit in the yard and watch your television. So then you get up to close the shades, and the city makes you open them. That's basically what happened.”

For the past two years, the Cubs and the rooftop business owners have been fighting over the team's plan to put up signage above the Wrigley Field bleachers as part of a $375 million ballpark renovation. The Cubs have been fast and loose with specifics in their rebuilding plans, signage and the changing verbage of their projects. The Cubs said that no public money would be involved, but after approval it was reported that the Cubs are seeking a $75 million federal tax credit for "landmark" rehabilitation costs. However, the new bleachers and electronic scoreboard and advertising signage are not historic preservation but new, modern improvements that defeat the notion that Wrigley is still a historic landmark. But the Cubs want to make these massive changes, then get a new "landmark" status with the changes, in order to collect the $75 million in public tax breaks.

Now baseball has had a long standing exemption to federal Anti-Trust rules, based on a Supreme Court opinion that stated that baseball was not in "interstate commerce," so the Sherman Act does not apply. However, the same act has been applied to all other various professional sports. The Supreme Court has reasoned that since Congress did not amend the law to reverse its past decision, that decision stands as the lone sports exemption to federal anti-trust law. Many other courts have taken exception to the exemption - - - trying to limit it to the old reserve clause. However, MLB won a ruling recently allowing it to block the move of the A's to San Jose from Oakland. But that decision could have easily been based on the league charter and rules rather than approved by an anti-trust exemption.

A pleading in federal court filed without a justifiable basis can lead to sanctions. The plaintiffs counsel must have various arguments to counter the blanket anti-trust exemption defense, considering that Wrigley Field itself is owned by a separate legal entity than the baseball franchise. But common ownership and affiliation may mute that argument. But the strongest position may be the simplest: the anti-trust exemption solely deals with internal baseball operations and decisions, not matters dealing with the public or third parties (such as rooftops). 

With the announcement that the bleachers will not be ready until late May, 2015, season ticket holders were only given 10 days to decide what to do with their tickets: exchange them, get a refund or if they missed the deadline, the Cubs would hold their money "on credit" for future game purchases. In other words, the Cubs don't want to give back the cash, but bait and switch bleacher seats for unused grandstand seats for April and May contests.

But there still is another open issue with the delayed bleacher completion. The historic brick walls are just supported by 2 x 4s. It is doubtful that the walls have the structural integrity if a ball player hits it while trying to make a catch. Also, since this is still an active construction site, the city could red tag the area as being unsuitable to the public or players. This is like the ill-planned Northwestern football game when the Big Ten officials called the field unplayable because it was configured with too small end zones ending in the brick walls. (The game was played on in one direction).

But nothing seems to matter to the Cubs organization except to bulldoze ahead with their various plans.

LAST LOOKS

It took to the end of the season for many media types to realize
that on a cool, clear September Sunday afternoon, they were watching
the last Cubs day game at the old Wrigley Field.

By the time next season rolls around (injunctions not withstanding),
the press box, box seat, reserved terrace and upper deck views to the north-northeast
will be totally different.

I expect next year's opening day game stories to include "shocking" "surprised" "gaudy,"
and "overcommercialized" eye pollution when the Cubs put up the large Jumbotron and the
six (6) other outfield signs. Some will snicker that it is appropriate that the Cubs take a historic
landmark major league Field of Dreams and slap enough billboard signage to make even minor league ball yards blush.

It is not a "sky is falling" riff. The mayor and the city all said in bending over backwards for the Ricketts grand real estate development projects that Wrigley Field was one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city. But they never considered why Wrigley Field was the top tourist venue: it certainly could not be because of stellar baseball teams. It was a major draw because it was different, unique, and "old." The sight lines to the rooftops of the neighborhood, the large last of its kind manual center field scoreboard which mimics the lush green grass of the field. The iconic features will be buried by the flashing lights of electronic signage.

Purists still cringe at the small video board and the mini-Green Monster in the right field bleacher corner. By most accounts, the party deck has been a poop deck - - - an expensive gimmick that was not worth changing the character of the park. Purists will have cranial explosions when first viewing the final "modern" Wrigley lay out. The first 2015 promotion should be brain splatter ponchos.

So this week will have the sentimental columns by older writers who may slither nostalgic sentiment towards the company lines about the need for new revenue sources in order to build a championship team. That the old ways have to be part of the new way in order to get out of the old rut of not being a World Series champion for 107 years. Change is progress.  But people don't have to like it.

As with many major tourist attraction changes, there will be the curiosity seekers who want to see what is different. It will be interesting to determine a year later whether the new park has any lasting draw on the next generation of paying fan.

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.

ROOFTOP LAWSUIT TWIST

The players in the Wrigley reconstruction saga all felt that the rooftop owners would sue the Cubs to stop the team from blocking their landmarked views. Yesterday, most of the rooftop owners sued, but not the Cubs but the city.

The rooftop owners sued the city for violating several constitutionally protected property rights.
In its six count complaint, the rooftop owners allege the landmark commission violated the administrative review act and case law in the conduct of its hearings; that the commission violated its own governing ordinance; that the commission violated due process and equal protection by acting beyond its legal authority; that the city is arbitrary in its landmark designations or application; that the city under the color of law violated the owners civil rights under §1983; and that city should be enjoined from allowing permits or construction to happen at Wrigley Field because the rooftops would be irreparably harmed.

As a result, the rooftop owners will probably win because the city's landmark commission
failed to follow basic legal requirements for a zoning/administrative hearing.

In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court made it clear in Klaeren v. Village of Lisle that
zoning hearings are administrative not legislative functions. As an administrative hearing,
the principles of due process must be followed to allow anyone with a property interest at
stake to participate, give evidence, cross examine witnesses, etc. As such, the government
body must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support zoning decisions.

As alleged in the complaint, the city's landmark commission did not allow the rooftop owners
to participate at all in the course of the Wrigley landmark review process, i.e. present
witnesses, evidence or cross-examine the Cubs witnesses. If that is the case, the landmark commission did not follow clear Illinois law and its decision can be summarily reversed.

The lawsuit also claims that the commission violated its own governing ordinance in allowing the Wrigley reconstruction, by re-writing the ordinance with legislative powers it does not have.
If the commission acted beyond its own legal authority, then its decision would be null and void.

By suing the city for violations of due process and equal protection, the rooftop owners avoid a confrontation with the Cubs over the 2004 settlement agreement language which both sides claim a different interpretation on whether any expansion can block views. The lawsuit alleges that the Cubs have received $40 million during the revenue sharing agreement, or about $4 million per season. The irony of this is that many in the advertising community believe that the Cubs would not get much more in annual revenue from the new signage. So blocking the rooftop views will not significantly increase the gross revenues to the team since the rooftop revenue would dry up.

Two things can happen in this lawsuit.

First, the judge can rule that the city violated its own ordinance and Illinois law. The approval of Wrigley construction would be declared null and void and the Cubs would be back to square one.

Second, the judge could rule that the city, through its approval process and final city council vote, met the spirit of the law and uphold the administrative ruling. Then the Cubs could go forward with the approved plans. 

However, in either case, there probably will be an appeal. And appeals take years to work their way through the system. As a result, Ricketts four year time table to do all his real estate development work will be stretched out another two or three years.

Which leads to the following possible reactions by the Cubs ownership:

One, reaffirm their position that no work will be done if there is a lawsuit pending against the reconstruction. That means the Cubs will not be spending any money for improvements to the ball park (which some believe may be cover for the declining revenue and bank loan covenants that may restrict the reconstruction expenses to begin with). 

Two, the Cubs move forward at their own risk with the reconstruction projects (including the non-landmarked issues like the new clubhouse or hotel-commercial projects).

Three, a move some fans come to consider now as a real possibility, that the Ricketts throw up their hands and say the situation is unworkable, and begin the search to find a new home for the team in the suburbs or out of state. If the Ricketts truly have $500 million of their own money to spend on a baseball facility, they can go and build a state-of-the-art entertainment complex with ample parking in the suburbs.

Fourth, throw up their hands and sell their interest in the team to a third party. But since the team is in a mess financially and politically, it would be doubtful that the Ricketts could recoup their entire investment in the team and surrounding real estate holdings.

One can never guarantee how a court will rule in any litigated case. But what is certain that this lawsuit will again divert attention away from the baseball team issues.

TINKER TO SECOND CHANCE

It seems that Tom Ricketts spends all day in his office tinkering with the Wrigley Field architectural legos. The rehabilitation plans for the park are constantly in flux. It took a FOIA request by the Tribune to find out what is actually in the "final" plans. From the fragmented reports, this is what I think is the current plan:

The first phase of the plan is to get the 7 outfield signs in as soon as possible. To do so, the back bleacher walls are to be moved 6 feet into the street; and the bleacher extended 12 feet over the streets. The new outfield signs will be anchored on this new structural support. The bleachers themselves are going to be mostly torn down in order to a) construct the under-the-bleachers bullpens and b) rebuild the outfield brick walls and ivy. Two light poles will be installed in the outfield corners. The new bleacher configuration may also support another bar/restaurant hidden under the bleachers near the gates.

The strangest part of the new plan are three "bunker" suites. We think that they are going to be constructed underground where the box seats abut the old LF bullpen area. The underground suites will have no view to the field, but will have a concourse to new box seats apparently in the area of the old Cubs bullpen. It would seem that the existing box seat sections will have to be torn up in order to construct these new bunkers, possibly in conjunction with the new clubhouse plans. Likewise, the RF box seats will be added extending from the visitors dugout the the bullpen to the foul pole.  The likely result of these changes is that there will be little to no foul territory. 

If you are puzzled why there is so much underground building, it seems to be the only way to monetize every single inch of Wrigley Field space. I really don't recall the public outcry for new luxury suites that have no view of Wrigley Field. I don't see stuffing a bullpen staff into a hot livestock pen under the bleachers on hot summer days is going to make them any better pitchers. And for all those Cub fans who still blame Bartman for alleged interference, without any foul territory there will be more fan "plays" in the future.

But what is really amazing is that the city approved a plan and the final submissions have substantial changes. The Tribune reported that the outside facades now will have large electronic ribbon advertising signs (like Times Square). But at the same time, Ricketts wants Wrigley Field to be put on the National Historic Register, so he can get a 20% tax break on the reconstruction costs. But clearly, Ricketts is not "preserving" the old park in its original state; he is totally transforming it into a Disney entertainment complex.

And now, the time line for the reconstruction will span four off seasons. So the work will not be completed until Opening Day 2018. And there were reports that the baseball operations will not have the freedom to spend until the business side maxes out on the revenue side. So the Cubs as a baseball operation may be handcuffed until 2018. Unless of course, the construction plans change - - - again.

THE REVISIONS

The Cubs will go before the city Landmarks Commission on July 10 to get final approval for the revised Wrigley Field plans. Despite what the Cubs PR department says, the revisions are not minor changes to the approved plan.

The Cubs continue to release renderings for their plans, except that the drawings do not fully represent what their proposal states. In this drawing, there are three new signs - - - including two video scoreboards. However, the submitted plans calls for seven (7) outfield signs. This drawing is missing four (4) signs. At this late stage, this can't be an oversight but a means of glossing over potential objections.

The Sun-Times city hall reporter on Tuesday reported that the Cubs were going "all or nothing" with the latest proposal because the team assumes it will wind up in court. Besides stumbling over the moving the bullpens to under the bleachers and destroying ivy and bricks in the outfield walls, the "new" plan contains  seven outfield signs, including two video scoreboards, 300 new seats, 300 standing room positions and new outfield light standards rising 92 feet high.

The addition of 600 patrons in the "new" plans is a response to the legal argument that the Cubs have been making that any city approval of "Wrigley Field expansion" would trump the rooftop owners agreement, including blocking the rooftop views. In prior plans, there was no additional seating. This has to be in response to the notion that "expansion" of a park means more seating or spectators. But it is unclear whether this will actually convince a judge to rule in the Cubs favor, since the rooftop settlement really only contemplated the existing bleacher expansion proposal at the time of prior court case. Further, every contract calls for "good faith" performance by both sides. One could argue that the Cubs, who are not selling out every game in the past three years, don't need to sell 600 additional tickets per game in order to make it. One could rule that this was a scheme to circumvent the good faith requirement of the existing contract.

The Cubs claim that the team is moving forward on these plans because of the promises made to their players, fans and advertising partners. The promise made to players was upgraded facilities like clubhouse, which could have been done years ago without any landmark approvals. The promise made to the fans was that ownership would field a championship caliber ball club. The Cubs have been bottom dwellers since those first statements. So the real "promises" at stake in these revisions are the ones made to the Cubs new "advertising partners."  Ricketts is obsessed with new revenue sources that he will destroy the look and feel of the old Wrigley Field in order to add a few million dollars in new advertising revenue. No one has told him that he may be about to kill his only golden goose, as iconic Wrigley Field is the historic draw for fans to the park, and not the team.

INTERVENTION NEEDED

The Cubs continue to sign injured pitchers hoping that they turn it around and find their past skills several years removed from major league action. James McDonald was placed on the 60 day DL at the end of camp. He was another injured pitcher the Cubs signed to find some past glory. Now, the Cubs continue to fill their M*A*S*H unit of rehabbing starters. After the Scott Baker situation last season, you would think the front office would have more caution in this area.

But no. MLBTR reports the the Cubs have agreed to terms with right-hander Joel Piniero on a minor league contract. Pineiro will spend 10 days in extended Spring Training before reporting to Triple-A Iowa

Pineiro, 35, hasn't appeared in the Major Leagues since 2011 or the minor leagues since 2012. He inked a minor league deal with the Orioles last off-season after shoulder surgery cut his 2012 campaign short. Pineiro spent some time rehabbing with the club, but he was released midway through the season without getting into a game.

Pineiro joins A. Vizcaino as the long term rehab candidates. Vizcaino, who is now more than two years removed from TJ surgery, was sent to Daytona to continue his rehab, mostly because the club did not want him exposed to cold weather pitching. How brittle is Vizcaino?  Very. Pineiro has not pitched in the majors since 2011, and his age, what is the realistic chance he will ever recover? Almost nil.

 So why do the Cubs continue on this gambler's path of trying to roll hard eights at the crap table? Is there a continuing desperation that the vaulted minor league system is weak on pitching? That would be one explanation why the team continues to take these risky shots in the dark with injured veterans.

But for a team that is guarding its resources like a small market club, you would think that it would be better served by stopping the injury merri-go-round and try to develop their own pitching staff.

OVERVALUE UNDERPERFORM

Last year, the front office continued their blueprint of signing rehabbing or down players to one year deals with the hopes of flipping them for prospects at the trade deadline. Exhibit A was former Twins pitcher Scott Baker, who was recovering from Tommy John surgery, signed for a $5.5 million deal.

Baker spent nearly the entire season in rehab.

Baker gave the Cubs 15 innings pitched in the last weeks of the season.  the Cubs paid $366,000 per inning pitched for Baker to get healthy and go back on the free agent market.

Well, Baker did go back into free agency, but he did not land a major league deal.

Baker has already passed his physical, so the Mariners signed Baker to a minor league deal with an invitation to Spring Training. Baker will earn $1MM if he makes the team and can earn up to $3.25MM more via incentives.

There are a few telling aspects of this story:

1. There is no player loyalty to a team that basically paid him $5.5 million to get healthy.
2. The Cubs apparently did not offer Baker a new contract; or 
3. Baker would rather sign a minor league deal for 2014 than to pitch for the Cubs.

REHAB PROJECT

Former Indian Grady Sizemore is confident he will sign a major league contract in the offseason. He has not played in the majors since 2011. A series of arm, knee and back injuries has derailed his career. At age 32, he will attempt a final comeback.

But what team will take a chance on a player who has not played a full season since 2008?

This profile fits in the Epstein rehab project mold. A chance to give a veteran an opportunity to prove he belongs, then trade him at the deadline for more prospects.

The Cubs have plenty of outfield depth in the minor league system with Jackson, Soler, Almora, Vogelbach and Bryant.

Stat mavens will notice that Sizemore has a career 27.5 WAR over 8 seasons or an average 3.44 WAR which is well above starter level. But his last full season was in 2008 when he hit  33 HR 90 RBI, .268 BA 5 SB. The next year in 106 games he dropped off to a .248 BA.

It would seem to be a longshot that Sizemore would come back to his pre-injury performance levels. Further, the Cubs will need to continue to push their theme of a "youth movement" and Sizemore would be a tough sell when budget constrictions are coming in 2014.