Ways the Cubs could contend in 2014

In Commentary And Analysis by myles156 Comments

Pitchers and catchers report in just 17 days. That's not a long time. Frankly, this has been the worst offseason I can ever remember for the Cubs, so I'm ready to watch the 2014 Cubs win 71 games and be eliminated from playoff contention in late May… or am I? Here are some things that could happen. If they do, the Cubs could be more competitive than you'd think.

Starlin Castro takes great leap forward

This one's pretty simple. Until 2013 happened, there were many people who thought Starlin Castro could end up a perennial All-Star, a player that hit .300 and hit 12-15 bombs a year. 2013 was a terrible year, but it was just a season. There are plenty of great players who just had one terrible season (perhaps his was brought upon him by Dale Sveum, perhaps by his outstanding legal issues last year); in any case, Castro is still just 23 years old, and this year will be his age-24 season. If he just repeats his 2012 season and improves his defense a little bit, he's a 4 win player, which coincidentally is 4 wins more than he provided above replacement last season. A new coach (and a new hitting coach) and a fresh start may just be what he needs.

Chance of occurence: 75%

Anthony Rizzo progresses

Rizzo's wOBA fell from .349 in 2012 to .325 last season, but that is almost entirely predicated on a 52 point drop in BABIP. The BABIP drop was preceded by a 5% decrease in line drives and a 3% decrease in ground balls, all ending up in the least productive bucket of battted balls (flyball). Pair that with a 6% drop in HR/FB and you've got a recipe for a disastrous season…except it wasn't, because Rizzo was still a useful player. To his benefit, he didn't let it affect him, actually increasing his walk rate from 7.3% to 11.0% last season. He was worth 1.6 WAR last year and if he can get on top of pitches this season, I bet Rizzo will explode this season. Again, a new hitting coach could provide the perspective he needs to really turn it on this year.

Chance of occurence: 75%

 

Edwin Jackson regresses to the mean (upwards)

Edwin Jackson's FIP went down 6 points last year, but his ERA went up 95 points. That doesn't really jive. The increase in ERA is primarily driven by two factors: a 44 point increase in BABIP and a 7.9% downtick in LOB%. Neither of those have much predictive value, so I'd allow for some easy regression to a more reasonable ERA next year. It's somewhat disheartening to track his inning pitched each season, fallling all the way to 175.1 this year, but Jackson can still be a solid #3 or #4 guy for the next 3 years.

Chance of occurence: 65%

Junior Lake plays up to his tools

Believe it or not, but in 2009 there was sentiment (if not consensus) that Lake was going to end up getting to the majors before Castro did. Junior Lake is a phenomenal physical specimen, one who has bat speed, power, and a hose. He's also extremely fast. Unfortunately, he has two flaws; pitch recognition and defensive instincts. The latter can be marginalized by putting Lake at a corner (I'd prefer right, but the Cubs prefer left). The former will never be fixed, but that doesn't mean Lake can't be a useful player. Soriano never saw a breaking ball 6 inches off the plate he didn't like, and Lake could end up being the same way. It might be a lazy comparison, but I see plenty of comparisons between the two, and Lake's tools might even be better than Soriano's were at the same age. If things go the right way with Lake, I could envision a .250/.300/.430 line with 20/20 HR/SB, and plus defense at left field. That might not sound like much to you, but that's Alex Gordon. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying it's possible.

Chance of occurence: 50% 

Alcantara gets a May call-up and rakes

I'm not sure what it'll take to get Darwin Barney out of the lineup, but maybe this is the best chance we have in 2014. I'm a big Alcantara fan, even if I think his future is at CF. He could play 2B serviceably, and he's "proved it" at every level the Cubs have thrown at him. Let's say he crushes in Spring Training and crushes at Iowa (very possible). If a few of the other things on this list happen, maybe the Cubs take a gamble and call up Arismendy. If that happens, he's more-or-less instantly an upgrade offensively over Barney, and maybe not that worse defensively. If Alcantara is even a league-average 2B (an aggressive stance but not an insane one), he's 2 wins better than Darwin at essentially no cost (if you avoid Super Two). 

Chance of occurence: 40%

Mike Olt forgets about 2013, grabs hold of 3B job

Olt had a disastrous 2013 season, but there are plausible explanations as to why that might have been. The fact of the matter remains that Olt has some baseball skills and was the #22 prospect just a year ago. No one is asking for Mike Olt to be a superstar player. If Olt is just a major-league regular, he allows Valbuena to go to 2B and Barney to super-sub (just one other way to get Barney on the bench, a recurring theme here). The scouting reports give a wide outlay for outcomes regarding the former RoughRider, but the certainly include a return to form.

Chance of occurence: 33%

Shark ascends to ace-hood

It probably isn't discussed as much as it should given the rampant extension/trade talks surrounding Shark, but Samardzija hasn't ever really been sublime. He's been FIP-unlucky for the last two years, and the numbers are good ones (3.55, 3.77), but those are #2-#3 numbers, not #1s. To be a real frontline starter, you need to be more consistent. Shark has the arsenal to do that, but whether or not he puts it together remains to be seen.

Chance of occurence: 25%

One of the Big Two get a call-up and mash

From every indication this FO has given, historically, neither Baez nor Bryant will play in Chicago this year, barring a September call-up. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, though. If they prove that it's unfair to AAA to leave them there, they could see themselves in Chicago at any time after Super Two expiration. There is a very real chance that either of them could step into Chicago and be well above-average, and they'd certainly be replacing fungible talent (Baez at 2B, Bryant at RF – just get used to it now). I don't think we'll see either of them for any real amount of time, but it's not out of the realm of possibility

Chance of occurence: 25%

Ryan Sweeney becomes league-average CF or better/Sweeney-Ruggiano platoon works to great effect

Sweeney put together a nice little season last year (besides the injury, of course), hitting .266/.324/.448 on the year. Unfortunately, he was much better before his injury (.295/.342/.527) than he was after it (.225/.300/.338). I'm not sold on Sweeney as anything other than a 4th/5th OF, but he has the pedigree (2003 through 2005, he was a top 100 prospect-type) and he has put together 6 consecutive "won't kill you" seasons. 

Ruggiano is the biggest (read: only) offensive acquisition the Cubs made this year. He's basically Brian Bogusevic from the right-side, though he has a career OPS of .834 against lefties. Sweeney's .750 OPS against righties makes him an ideal platoon-mate (neither can hit same-side pitching). Defensively, both are very capable. This platoon could really work (though if Ruggiano platoons with Sweeney, you'd ideally need a platoon for Schierholtz). 

Chance of occurence: 20%/40%

Darwin Barney has offensive integer overflow, becomes Barry Bonds

With the exceptions of maybe Adeiny Hechavarrria and Pete "Power of the" Kozma, Darwin Barney has the lightest bat in the majors. To me, it feels like he is reaching the upper bound of futility with the stick. Perhaps there is a literal hard boundary on how bad you can be at hitting a baseball, and Barney somehow crashes through it this year. He'd end up rolling over, and if that happens, he somehow becomes the best at hitting baseball instead. 

Chance of occurence: 7.62%

Christopher Lloyd takes his talents to Chicago

In the 1994 classic film Angels in the Outfield, the angel Al, played by Christopher Lloyd, enlists the help of his comrades to propel the hapless Los Angeles Angels to win the pennant. He does so in the hopes that the main character, Roger (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) will then be reunited with his birth father. While that doesn't happen, Roger is adopted by George, the Angels' gruff manager with a heart of gold.

Chance of occurence: 6.66%

Rick Renteria makes Faustian bargain for team plate discipline

Rick Renteria has never managed in the majors before. It stands to reason that he'd want to make a good first impression. Perhaps he reaches out to the heavens for guidance, praying for victory before each game. Unfortunately, the other team does the same thing, and so both prayers have little to no effect. After a 5 game losing streak, maybe Rick instead consorts with a less-than-holy spirit. As Renteria becomes more and more desperate, he eventually decides to trade his soul for 24 years of great plate discipline. That is worth at least 10 WAR a season, and probably more.

Note: this and the "Angels in the Outfield" scenario are mutually exclusive.

Chance of occurence: 6.66%

Ted Lilly goes on rampage, kidnaps Andrew McCutchen, Joey Votto, and Adam Wainwright

The media wants you to think that injuries are what ended Ted Lilly's career. Not so. Several inside sources have confirmed to me that is instead the thrill of the hunt that has gotten into ole' Theodore. He's already defeated the major leagues. Now he plays…the most dangerous game.

Chance of occurence: 1.191924%

Cubs sign Henry Rowengartner, who makes immediate impact

Hey, it's either him or Chris Rusin.

Chance of occurence: 1.03%

Cubs sign key free agents that help contend now and in the future

Not likely.

Chance of occurence: 1%

Share this Post

Comments

  1. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:

    @ Suburban kid:
    Same reason it happens on other sites: some bullshit ad. It happens to me a lot on Forbes, but it’s another great reason to jailbreak your device. I use BioLockdown, which is a touch id tweak that locks certain apps from opening without a valid print. You can use it to essentially block redirects to the App Store, which is nice.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. fang2415

    Cistulli’s ZiPS writeup wrote:

    In his Letters to a Young Poet, Rainer Maria Rilke writes something to the effect of “Rome is beautiful, because every place is beautiful.” A wonderful sentiment, that, but also patently false — as is demonstrated by the existence of Gresham, Oregon, for example.

    Were he alive and also interested in baseball, for some reason, Rilke might suggest that every starting rotation is beautiful. Again, he’d be incorrect — and one would be free to point to the Cubs’ rotation as evidence.

    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Smokestack Lightning

    Cubs won’t contend, but I’ll be pretty pleased if even the top two things happen. Any hope of the team building an offense that can compete by 2016 has to have Rizzo and Castro making big strides.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. Author
    Myles

    sitrick wrote:

    I think Alcantara raking is more likely than Lake raking, personally, but that’s just me.

    Truth, but Lake is already here, and Alcantara needs to be called up first, which might not happen for various reasons.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. Andrew

    I’d say you have to throw in Olt turning into what he was in AA again in the big leagues and Murphy/Valbuena platoon moving to 2B. That makes our 2B pretty serviceable.

    I’ll add in Ryan Sweeney turning into a league average player too. Not really out of the question at all because that is what he was last year (actually a little better) and none of his peripherals seem to indicate a sharp decrease in production should be expected (.288 BABIP, less than his career BABIP of .320). I think Sweeney could be a big surprise next year Oliver has him at 2.6 WAR

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. JimL

    Another thing that would help would be if Shark figures it out and his results start matching his peripherals. If he develops into a clear #1/#2 pitcher it would go a long way to helping the Cubs compete.

    Also, I expect Josh Vitters to surprise some people this year. If that is true, the Cubs could have some nice platoons in center (Sweeney/Ruggiano) and right (Shierholtz/Vitters) that could produce a decent WAR between them.

    As for Darwin Barney, his defense carried him to a 2.3 WAR in 2012. I know defensive values are much more suspect, but still. His walk rate has been increasing every year (2011 3.9%, 2012 5.6%, 2013 6.5%). If he can continue that trend and walk 7.0% while continuing to strike out only 11% or so while duplicating the rest of his 2011 offensive numbers he would be fine at second. Not great or even good, but acceptable.

    Also, if Olt turns into the hitter everyone thought he would be two years ago, the Cubs could move the Valbuena/Murphy platoon to second and offensively upgrade the position that way.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. sitrick

    Welington holding onto his second half production; Shark finally taking a step forward; Edwin Jackson regressing back to where he should be instead of being a tire fire; Olt being okay…there are a lot of reasonable ways this team could seriously improve. The road to .500 isn’t as long as people think it is.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. JimL

    Also, if Barney doesn’t start at second, Castro’s poor defense at short will really be exposed. Castro cannot make an accurate throw to the second baseman to start a double play to save his life. No one notices it now because Barney still manages to somehow turn two, with a lesser defensive second baseman, Castro’s error totals will go up and the Cubs will turn a lot less double plays.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    @ sitrick:
    It’s that many if these things need to happen. What you are saying, and what Myles said in the post, are true of all teams. Every team could contend if numerous things go right and nothing goes wrong.

    It could happen for all teams. And this is how it could. These things and others could go wrong and they fail to win 60 games. Fun to dream about how all could go perfect, but to say it isn’t as far off as others think is a stretch. The fact that so much has to go right kind of shows it’s not at all likely.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. Nate

    I actually think the best way for Barney to be displaced from 2B is for Mike Olt to be healthy/good again (maybe not the same thing). If Olt is a 2-2.5-3 WAR 3B, Valbuena/Murphy can man 2B right out of Spring Training, and Barney can be UTIL or traded. Then trade Valbuena when Baez or Alcantara are ready.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. Pezcore

    The one thing I’ll criticize Theo on is the lack of buy low signings. The Cubs have not signed these guys yet — whether it be a player coming off a bad year like DeJesus or a player who hasn’t realized his tools like Stewart. Theo Epstien profited off these signings in Boston: David Ortiz and Johnny Damon were overpaid for and became faces of the franchise even though the numbers didn’t seem to match up at first.

    It’d be nice to see some signings of 25-29 year old guys who are still in the “baseball prime” range and/or non-prospects in the high minors whose peripherals suggest they deserve a cup of coffee. Adrian Cardenas would be the perfect example but he didn’t work out at all.

    Then again, it’s another month until catchers and pitchers report — so it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Cubs pick up a few of buy-low guys who fell through the cracks.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. uncle dave

    Myles wrote:

    Frankly, this has been the worst offseason I can ever remember for the Cubs

    I’d take 1993. If the Cubs ever top that, I’m giving up on the team for good.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. Pezcore

    JimL wrote:

    Also, if Barney doesn’t start at second, Castro’s poor defense at short will really be exposed. Castro cannot make an accurate throw to the second baseman to start a double play to save his life. No one notices it now because Barney still manages to somehow turn two, with a lesser defensive second baseman, Castro’s error totals will go up and the Cubs will turn a lot less double plays.

    Darwin was plus at Shortstop and moved to a less rigorous position so putting a bat-first second basemen, such as Olt, will expose Castro.

    The issues with defense may get worse as his body fills out. Castro relies heavily on his speed to be an effective player and a decrease in it affects his BABIP and his defense at Short. I think that his development as an athlete is changing his play style, and not in a good way. I’m pessimistic that he’ll still be useful once making the transition.

    I’ve stated that Castro was overvalued due to the situation he came into, the high BABIP he benefited from, and his seeming inability to hit for extra bases, run the bases well or draw walks.
    I think we’ll look back on Starlin’s large contract as a sunk cost which could have been avoided if his value was properly accessed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. Andrew

    @ Pezcore:

    Sweeney was a Free agent and buy low guy that actually has good upside and is in his prime still.

    I think Ruggiano is going to look like a swell trade, check out his projections on fangraphs:

    .257/.324/.432 in 554 PA for 2.0 WAR according to Steamer

    .262/.341/.478 in 600 PA for 4.5 WAR on Oliver.

    These seem overly optimistic for whatever reason, but they do indicate he could be a good buy-low guy. I think him and Schierholtz providing 3 WAR in a platoon would not surprise me at all.

    Kottaras I think is another buy-low guy. Not that he has much upside but he should provide 1 WAR for about $1 million.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. WaLi

    Kind of did an average of WAR added to be what could be expected based on your chances. 8.1 moe wins from last year. So… we move to 74 wins. Yay!

    WAR Added Chance Average
    Castro 4 75% 3
    Rizzo 2.4 75% 1.8
    Lake 3 50% 1.5
    Alcantara 2 40% 0.8
    Baez/Bryant 4 25% 1
    Total 8.1

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. Pezcore

    @ Andrew:

    Kottoras is a good backup catcher and Ruggiano is decent, but old. Those are really low-profile guys — though Ruggiano is better than I remember him being. I’d like to see someone with a good shot to start, preferably at second, third, centerfield or in the pitching staff. Last season we had Sweeney, Schierholtz, Navarro and Borbon, not even counting pitchers. It’s been extremely quiet on the reclamation front.

    @ Nate:
    Olt hasn’t played a professional inning at second according his baseball reference page. He may be a plus 3B, but at 2nd he has no experience.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=olt—001mic

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. Rice Cube

    The Cubs did sign former ROY Chris Coghlan to a MiLB deal so that’s a lightning-in-a-bottle type hope there.

    I’m not sure why we are discussing Olt-to-2B because with Valbuena/Murphy/Barney there’s enough options to make that unnecessary.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  44. Rice Cube

    @ Suburban kid:
    The gist I’m getting from the various reports I’ve seen is that the RF rooftops aren’t fighting as much against this sign as the LF rooftops are against the Jumbotron so the Cubs might be forcing some form of action by pushing the signage that’s less objectionable here.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  45. Pezcore

    @ Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect:

    Julio Burbon, Dioner Navarro, Ryan Sweeney, Julio Borbon, Adrien Cardenas and Nate Schierholtz all came last offseason. Not all these guys had signed by April. Navvaro cost 1.75 million and Schierholtz cost 2 Mil.

    Olt and Baker came last season, while Vizciano has been here since 2011 (?)

    So far this season, we’ve had two players who fit into the category: Kottaras, who is the successor to Dioner Navarro in role, and Justin Ruggiano, who is nearing 32 years of age. Coughlin, at 28, is a good pickup in his prime, but we’re stacked in the corner outfield.

    Kottaras is at the end of the ‘prime’ while Ruggiano is past ‘prime’ at 32. Note that in an inflated market, Kottaras (correct spelling) is the only fielder acquired making more than the minimum.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  49. srbutch5

    Reno Discussion:
    Someone mentioned this before, but the location of Wrigley is more of a revenue generator than the actual structure. The infrastructure around the field helps attract patrons when the product is less than desirable. The season tickets are only there because of the amenities surrounding the park. People aren’t going to buy season tickets without those incentives when the Cubs are bad.

    And the argument “People will come to see them where ever if they are winning”, is nice and all. But this is the Cubs. Do you guys really think they’ll be perennial winners? What if they move and they continue to be the Cubs we all know? How are they going to fill the seats (and more importantly to them, sell tickets)? The area around Wrigley gives them too much of a safety net. They don’t have to win all the time to make money (see: 2013). Moving to the ‘burbs would jeopardize that.

    If they moved within the city, they could still have a safety net depending on where they build and the if the area around the park can have similar amenities to what Wrigley has now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  51. Andrew

    @ srbutch5:

    srbutch5 wrote:

    If they moved within the city, they could still have a safety net depending on where they build and the if the area around the park can have similar amenities to what Wrigley has now.

    Thats one huge problem of moving. Anywhere they move has to have enough room for them and those places dont have the amenities that Wrigley has around it. It’d be like US Cellular in a neighborhood with nothing around it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  54. GBTS

    So Kaplan has the rooftop contract and published some of its terms today. Here’s the fucking biggie:

    6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.

    Any expansion

    of Wrigley Field

    approved by governmental authorities

    shall not be a violation

    http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/exclusive-look-inside-cubs-rooftop-contract

    What the fucking fuck. Put that shit up and dare these pricks to sue.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  57. Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect

    @ GBTS:

    It still seems like the rooftops could argue whether adding a sign/jumbotron counts as an expansion, until you look at the quote further down the article:

    Finally, in doing significant research on this dispute, I was able to read the following public document which is the result of a City Council of Chicago meeting and subsequent vote on July 24, 2013 which passed 49-0 by the Chicago City Council:

    “Specifically, but without limitation, Applicant shall have the right to expand the Wrigley Field bleachers to install (i) a new video board in left field, which may include an LED sign, a neon illuminated sign above it and two light towers to assist in outfield lighting; and (ii) a neon sign in right field, which signage has been approved by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and, in addition to being part of the bleacher expansion, and along with all other signage contemplated by this Planned Development, is integral to the expansion and renovation of Wrigley Field and the development and redevelopment of the Property as contemplated herein.”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  64. Suburban kid

    I can’t believe nobody mocked my dumbassery about the sign. It was not actually designed by Todd Ricketts to advertise itself, although the thought of that was too amusing not to believe. The mock up was just showing what an advertising sign would look like, and since they don’t have an advertiser yet, they made it all about them. In retrospect, a moron could have told me that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  66. GBTS

    @ Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect:
    I’m sure the rooftops will argue that but to me it reads clear as saying “The Cubs cannot put up spite fences or small additions meant to block out the rooftops, but the rooftops can’t bitch about bona fide stadium expansions that have city approval.”

    Here’s my theory: when that contract was signed, the rooftop owners had assurances from their BFF Tunney that the Cubs would never get approval to expand in a manner that would block their views, both because the landmark status would make it near impossible and because he promised to torpedo any legitimate efforts politically. So the owners had confidence that provision was toothless. That’s why Tunney was such a cock during the approval process, not only were his constituents in trouble but his reputation with them was on the line. Once it became clear that the signage was going to get approved, they shifted to where they must be now: arguing that signs are not “expansion,” even though the Cubs have aptly characterized this as an expansion from day one. I think the Cubs have known for some time they have this won but they’re trying not to ruffle the neighborhood’s feathers, especially while the team sucks and the neighborhood is just as much of a gameday draw as the team. But after a while, enough is enough.

    Anything can happen when an arbitrator eventually interprets that language, but I’m guessing the rooftops are S.O.L. and both parties know it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  67. Author
    Myles

    sleepy svb wrote:

    dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
    Junior Lake is a phenomenal physical specimen, one who has bat speed, power, and a hose.

    Excuse me? How would you know?

    Let’s just say that Junior Lake and Marv Albert are good friends.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  68. TheStealthGM

    With anything Kaplan writes, I take with a grain of salt. His article shows that he has been fed pieces of the agreement from the team sources. The problem is that the contract needs to be read as an entire agreement, and put into context of what the actual issues were at the time.

    The Cubs had already proposed the 2,000 seat bleacher expansion, and that is what got the parties into the federal lawsuit. So, in context, it could be said that the “expansion” was not any expansion, but the proposed 2,000 bleacher in 2004.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  70. fang2415

    @ TheStealthGM:
    (dying laughing) at me posting just after that. Anyway, I’m still impressed that he got both the contract (which it looks like he got, and showed some lawyers, all of, but only printed excerpts comma) and tracked down the relevant city council language.

    It would certainly make sense for the Cubs to leak it, but still, Kap clearly has some decent sources.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  71. GBTS

    TheStealthGM wrote:

    So, in context, it could be said that the “expansion” was not any expansion, but the proposed 2,000 bleacher in 2004.

    Then why would they write “any expansion” instead of identifying that particular expansion? I agree that one needs to read the entire agreement to ensure that “expansion” doesn’t have some specified meaning beyond its plain language definition. Having said that, Kap makes it sound like he has the contract in his entirety and thay he allowed lawyers to read it in its entirety and none of them seemed to think “expansion” had a specific meaning. The question they seem to have is whether an arbitrator will think a Jumbotron fits into the everyday definition of “expansion.”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  72. GBTS

    This is my favorite part of Kap’s article and I honestly can’t tell if it’s tongue-in-cheek or not.

    Now, I am not a lawyer (although I did get accepted to law school way back when and my late father was a very successful attorney)

    Now, I am not a skydiver, but I did once have an airline ticket and my father was in the 82nd Airborne.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  73. GBTS

    Here’s the part where Kaplan’s attorney friend who read the entire contract just makes an argument solely for the sake of not taking a side:

    “I can see this case from both sides of the argument. The Rooftops feel they signed a contract to run their businesses without having their views obstructed in any way for a period of 20 years from Jan. 27, 2004 through Dec. 31, 2023 and that they have paid the Chicago Cubs a significant amount of money for that right.

    That bolded part is clearly not true. If that’s how the rooftops “feel,” they are wrong.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  74. GBTS

    Here is why I strongly feel I am right:

    6.6 The Cubs shall not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the Rooftops, provided however that temporary items such as banners, flags and decorations for special occasions, shall not be considered as having been erected to obstruct views of the Rooftops. Any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation of this agreement, including this section.

    That bolded part is important. Section 6.6 is what prohibits “windscreens or other barriers” that permanently obstruct Rooftop views. Temporary obstructions, like banners or signs for special occasions, are excluded from this prohibition. It further states that if Wrigley Field undergoes a governmentally approved “expansion,” this expansion does not violate the agreement, including the Section 6.6 prohibition on permanent visual obstructions. To me, that says if the Cubs get government approval to “expand” Wrigley, they are entitled if they want to include permanent barriers that obstruct the Rooftop views as part of that expansion. Put another way, if the Cubs get City approval to expand Wrigley Field, Section 6.6 does not apply. Sure, there could be another part of the contract that also prohibits obstructed views (see what I did there), but neither Kap nor his attorney friend seemed to mention one.

    The more I think about this section, the more I think it was a gamble over whether or not the Cubs could get city approval for signage and/or a Jumbotron by the time the contract expired. As Aisley pointed out in his great post a few days back, this was signed during Daley’s heyday and it seemed like a political impossibility at that time. What the Rooftops secured in this contract was a prohibition on temporary obstructions put up by the Cubs out of spite that were small enough to bypass city approval, like those big black “wind screens” they tried a while back. The Cubs essentially gave those up, but reserved a future right to put up obstructions if they, by some miracle, navigated through the landmark status and the Chicago City Council.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  75. GBTS

    @ GBTS:
    Also, Section 6.2 talks about “bleacher expansion.” Section 6.6 talks about “any expansion.” One could argue this is evidence that 6.6 is broader.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  81. GBTS

    @ WaLi:
    Probably trying to work something out amicably because even though they have a very strong argument (IMO), there is always the risk an arbitrator could say “Nope, ‘expansion’ means bleacher expansion, not Jumbotrons.” I think they’ve been trying to work out a deal where they get 90% of what they want and let the rooftops die a more dignified death to avoid this risk. The recent escalated moves by the Cubs and the ensuing threats of litigation may signal the rooftops are too stubborn to die gracefully.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  82. GBTS

    Basically I suspect the Cubs have, since the day they got approval, told the rooftops “It’s over, we won, please go away quietly and we’ll give you a small sum of money so this doesn’t get ugly.” Probably a low-ball offer to buy out the contract, given their apparent upper hand.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  87. GBTS

    fang2415 wrote:

    @ fang2415:
    Bleed 50 Shades of Blue

    With each crack of the whip, he shrieked in pure ecstasy: “BAN ME, ALVIN. BAN ME AGAIN.”

    I couldn’t argue with him that day.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  89. fang2415

    Anyway, this contract thing is interesting. I guess it seems like either:

    1. The rooftops have the Cubs by the balls in some way we don’t know about, or
    2. The Cubs (recently, at least) have been smart while pretending to be stupid (which is probably even more smart)

    2.) is interesting to me since the same possibility has been raised in other areas, e.g., free agency. And as in those other areas, the incomplete evidence we do have could be used to support either that possibility or its opposite.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  92. dmick89, Sweatpants Guru

    fang2415 wrote:

    Anyway, this contract thing is interesting. I guess it seems like either:
    1. The rooftops have the Cubs by the balls in some way we don’t know about, or
    2. The Cubs (recently, at least) have been smart while pretending to be stupid (which is probably even more smart)

    3. The rooftops are just fucking stupid because, well, people are often fucking stupid

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  97. TheStealthGM

    @ GBTS

    If the Cubs got everything from the city, including an amendment to the landmark ordinance to allow for jumbotron and signage that would interfere with rooftop views, then there was no reason for Ricketts to seek the rooftop owners implied consent to allow construction to begin, considering that the front office executives still allegedly believe the rooftops are stealing revenue from the Cubs even though they had a revenue sharing agreement. There has to be some other document, perhaps the court order dismissing the case, that conflicts the provisions cited by Kaplan.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  99. uncle dave

    @ TheStealthGM:
    It could be political as well. They may have a deal in place where Rahm or Tunney (or someone else) will or did step out of the way with respect to the approval process, but only if the Cubs allow them to save face politically by going through the motions of winning a lawsuit.

    I’ve no actual information on the matter, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the course of action that the Cubs are taking is at least partially politically motivated.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  102. Aisle424

    uncle dave wrote:

    They may have a deal in place where Rahm or Tunney (or someone else) will or did step out of the way with respect to the approval process,

    This would explain some of Tunney’s massive mood swings in this whole process. One minute he is banging his shoes (figuratively) and crying (literally) in exasperation over the Cubs’ excessive requests and the next minute he’s working peacefully on the frameworks of an agreement and then turning around and torpedoing the bridge part. He’s been all over the place.

    We chalked that up to Rahm coming in and telling him what’s what finally, but maybe he’s been somewhat in cahoots the whole time knowing the battle is essentially lost.

    Who knows?

    I still fully expect all of this to implode on the Cubs at some point. The fun will be finding out how.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  108. AndCounting

    @ Suburban kid:
    I’m not a “lawyer” per se. I just have a pretty good idea what “per se” means, which causes my less intelligent friends to call me “Law Dog.”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  112. JimL

    In the spirit of this article I tried thinking about what would have to go wrong for the Cardinals not to compete. I don’t think it is realistically possible. Unfortunately the Cards have so many slightly above average to very good players that they can survive even a couple of them getting hurt or having off years. They have seven legitimate (league average or above, likely way above) starting pitchers competing for rotation spots. They could lose Wainwright and Lynn and still be survive. Even if Carpenter or Adams regress and have off years (ala Starlin Castro) they would still have Holliday, Molina, Peralta to carry them offensively.

    They are so deep in that they have players who would be starting for many other teams (Tavaras, Ellis, even Kozma) on their bench.

    Short of a plane crash or an AK-47, I don’t see any way the Cards will finish behind the Cubs in the standings. Even if I was offered 10-1 or greater I don’t think I would take that bet.

    Sick.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  116. Like You Care

    Mock draft day! SF goes first:

    30 S HA’SEAN CLINTON-DIX ALABAMA
    56 WR DAVANTE ADAMS FRESNO STATE
    61 WR BRANDIN COOKS OREGON STATE
    77 CB E.J. GAINES MISSOURI
    94 QB JIMMY GAROPPOLO EASTERN ILLINOIS
    125 S CRAIG LOSTON LSU
    158 OT SEANTREL HENDERSON MIAMI

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  117. Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect

    GBTS wrote:

    Oh sure, I’ll bet Brett and Julie have been in “court” and “represented” “clients” in front of “judges.” BFD.

    “Well, he’s had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog… Well, replace the word ‘kinda’ with the word ‘repeatedly’ and the word ‘dog’ with ‘son’.”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  118. Like You Care

    CHI:

    14 DT AARON DONALD PITTSBURGH – The simulator really did catch up, moving Ealy up to 15th. It’s OK, I wanted to try this anyway…
    51 S JIMMIE WARD NORTHERN ILLINOIS – His play at the Senior Bowl showed he belongs, which is good because this S class needs him.
    82 DE JACKSON JEFFCOAT TEXAS – Technically sound, just needs time in the weight room. First-round ability.
    113 CB KEITH MCGILL UTAH – He has the SEA DB size, but not the hips. A bit stiff, but should be fine for CHI’s system.
    144 QB DAVID FALES SAN JOSE STATE – Made a case for being the No. 2 QB at the Senior Bowl.

    That would be a good haul.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  119. Like You Care

    21 ILB C.J. MOSLEY ALABAMA – I had a tough call because UNC TE Ebron was on the board. GB’s defense really needs help, though.
    53 OLB JEREMIAH ATTAOCHU GEORGIA TECH – I know, Matthews and Perry. Whatever, find a way to get him on the field and boost the pass rush.
    85 S AHMAD DIXON BAYLOR – Will really help in run support.
    117 TE C.J. FIEDOROWICZ IOWA – You want to run the ball? Having a legit TE would really help.
    149 DE JOSH MAURO STANFORD – 5T that needs to add some weight.

    GB seemed to want to transition their style to match SF and SEA a bit this year (at least offensively). The theme of this draft was toughness.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  122. Like You Care

    @ Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect:

    I only saw one series of the game, but Borland definitely impressed in practice. There are still a handful of ILBs I’d take before Borland because I think his ceiling is limited, but I do think he can play LB in any front now. He’s very quick to the ball, imo.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  123. Like You Care

    Speaking of the one series I saw in the Senior Bowl, Aaron Donald is legit. Despite what I’ve seen him do all year, he continues to impress me. Every snap I saw, Donald was the one guy moving the line of scrimmage.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  129. JonKneeV

    I don’t get the love for Francisco Lindor. 4 HRs in 912 ABs in the minors. Sure he projects to be a plus defender and stay at SS. That’s a top 6 prospect in baseball?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  130. WaLi

    Not sure if this was mentioned here, or maybe I looked over it, but looks like Baez, Almora, and Bryant were invited to spring training. Last year the NRI list included Baez, Brenly, and rapist Lillibridge.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  132. Author
    Myles

    JonKneeV wrote:

    I don’t get the love for Francisco Lindor. 4 HRs in 912 ABs in the minors. Sure he projects to be a plus defender and stay at SS. That’s a top 6 prospect in baseball?

    Nope. I don’t get it either. There is this crazy over-emphasis on middle-field defense that carries bat-light prospects higher than they should be, in my opinion. It’s an over-reaction to the general consensus that defense isn’t that important. It’s pretty important, but a 7 stick on a 4 glove is twice the prospect that a 5 stick on an 8 glove is (in my opinion).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  133. Like You Care

    @ Nate:

    34 S CALVIN PRYOR LOUISVILLE – Might be more coveted than Clinton-Dix because of his ability to play the run.
    66 WR JORDAN MATTHEWS VANDERBILT – Clear bpa in this simulation.
    98 DT KELCY QUARLES SOUTH CAROLINA – That D Line needs help.
    130 DT DANIEL MCCULLERS TENNESSEE – Ibid.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  135. WaLi

    What’s Bortles doing on the boards? Kiper has him going to the Browns, but I have seen some rumblings of him going in the top 5.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  137. Like You Care

    @ WaLi:

    He’s interesting. He has franchise potential, imo, but he needs some work. He’s a top-15 pick to me, but I can see why some don’t think he’s a first rounder. Lot of talk about him going No. 1 overall too.

    I can’t see him getting out of the top 10.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  138. Like You Care

    @ Nate:

    With a healthy RG3, the offense will be fine as long as they stick to the zone runs and play action. Defensively, they REALLY need the DBs they drafted last year to make some progress. They need to keep Orakpo. They also need to have a quality draft.

    If they do all those (realistic) things, there’s no reason they can’t compete for the division next year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  139. Akabari

    So i’m thinking about moving back to Chicago and its crazy how even after living there for a long time, I still can’t figure out which neighborhood I should live in when I look at apartment listings (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  143. TheStealthGM

    Per Kaplan’s second article with more provisions, it seems that my assumption was correct in regard to Section 6, as the parties were discussing the proposed bleacher “seating expansion” in 2004 and the possible obstructed views from that project. These paragraphs do not contemplate a jumbotron or new large signage. So, we still do not have a full context of what Kaplan has published so far – – – except this question: if the agreement is the subject of media stories, and is a matter of public interest, why hasn’t he posted the whole contract?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  145. rattier

    fang2415 wrote:

    This is interesting, I say, as someone who knows nothing about it: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwestern-wildcats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union

    I don’t know much about this either, but the thing I really don’t get is the whole “you have to play college for X years” thing. If you’re going to make millions and offer no money but an education, don’t you at least have to give people the choice to take that deal or go pro (like baseball)?

    Are the arguments 1) there isn’t an NFL minor league, so use the college system and 2) you have to get top level talent to play college to keep it so popular? I’d think if people wanted to watch top talent, they’d just watch pro ball.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  148. WaLi

    @ rattier:
    I would love to see the threat of a football minor league. It would be funny to see what the NCAA would do and all the fanboys (self included). No one would watch it then, because it wouldn’t be college. But it would have all the same players (minus the scrubs who are on the team to actually get an education). I imagine there would be less teams than college too. I guess it would be similar to MLB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  149. GBTS

    @ TheStealthGM:
    But again, I ask, if Section 6.2 uses the phrase “bleacher expansion” then why does Section 6.6 use the global term “any expansion” without limit to bleachers?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  150. GBTS

    Why would the Cubs go through all the trouble of getting the signage and Jumbotron passed through the City Council a decade before the contract expired if the contract explicitly prohibited those items even with the approval?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  151. EnricoPallazzo

    Akabari wrote:

    So i’m thinking about moving back to Chicago and its crazy how even after living there for a long time, I still can’t figure out which neighborhood I should live in when I look at apartment listings (dying laughing)

    there’s a quaint little neighborhood called “wrigleyville” that has a minor league baseball team. the team kind of blows though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  153. rattier

    @ WaLi:
    If an NFL minor league really took everyone but the scrubs, then college would probably become less of a big deal, maybe similar to baseball. Why not leave the draft the same, but open to all college age players? That way the college game stays mostly the same (since you’re only losing NFL ready freshmen and sophomores), but players at least have the option.

    Maybe that wouldn’t work because, like baseball, teams would want to snag talent that isn’t yet developed, but have no place on their roster. I don’t know. Too bad there’s nobody here who knows way more than any sane person should about the NFL draft.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  154. TheStealthGM

    @GBTS

    Possibly, because at the time of the agreement the Cubs bleacher seating proposal was subject to changes with the city and landmarks commission, which could have put limits on what the Cubs wanted to do. But one has to read all the paragraphs in Section 6 together to get a context of what the parties were talking about, which I think was the pending bleacher seat expansion. Plus, without the rest of the contract, including the parties own definitions of terms, the term “obstruction” or “barrier” could have been defined to include a jumbotron, scoreboard or signage. We don’t know (yet).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  155. GBTS

    TheStealthGM wrote:

    Plus, without the rest of the contract, including the parties own definitions of terms, the term “obstruction” or “barrier” could have been defined to include a jumbotron, scoreboard or signage. We don’t know (yet).

    This is true, but if the contract did define such terms I would expect Kap’s attorney friend who (reportedly) reviewed the contract in its entirety to point that out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  156. TheStealthGM

    @GBTS

    The way I read the first Kaplan article was that he gave only those paragraphs to his lawyer friends to review, not the whole document. That is why the lawyers hedged their comments to him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment