The Chicago Tribune had a long and interesting interview with Scott Boras yesterday. His comments on the Cubs are particularly interesting. Obviously, Mr. Boras has a viewpoint. He wants to get the most money for his clients because, among other things, that is the way he gets the most money for himself. Also, once you get to the level Mr. Boras is at, getting the most money for your client is winning. And people, especially competitive people like Mr. Boras, like winning.
Which brings us to his comments on the Cubs. First, he talks about Greg Maddux and the Cubs in 1992:
“As Greg Maddux neared free agency in 1992 after seven years with the Cubs, he hired Boras and instructed him: ‘I want to win. I want to win no matter what.’
‘He loved the Chicago Cubs,’ Boras says. ‘He loved Chicago. (Wife) Kathy loved it. I went to him and said: “I did all the studies. I'm letting you know something. This organization cannot win under its current structure. It does not have the aptitude in the minor leagues. I think Larry Himes is a very competent general manager, but the corporate mentality doesn’t fit.”’
‘He said: “Where do I need to go? I’d like to stay in the (National) League.” And I said: “The Atlanta Braves.”’”
While this doesn’t entirely fit with other versions I have read, in which Greg gave the Cubs a last chance to meet the Braves’ offer (Larry Himes said no because he had already signed Jose Guzman and, I think, Randy Myers – sigh), it does pretty well describe the Cubs under Tribune ownership. Actually, this other version makes the Tribune look even worse; i.e., they had a last chance to keep Greg Maddux and turned it down. I understand why William Wrigley thought he was doing the right thing in selling the Cubs to the Tribune in 1981, but there were significant downsides to Tribune ownership.
Which brings us to the most important part of the article for today’s Cubs:
“Asked how he sees it playing out with the Cubs, Boras says he doesn’t know and begins talking about how MLB revenues have surged from $3 billion in 2000 to $10.7 billion last year.
‘I don’t have much patience with organizations that don’t keep their star players and use the CBT (Competitive Balance Tax) as a reason,’ he says. ‘You get the reward when they’re young. You should use part of that reward to retain them when they’re older and deserving of larger salaries.’
‘The Cubs are worth $3 billion. They have optimized their TV rights and their brand. You talk about CBT tax penalties of $10 million to $12 million? My God, if you get to the playoffs, that’s paid for.’”
Obviously, anything Scott Boras says needs to be taken with a grain of salt (if not a truckload of salt). As I said, he’s out there to get the most money for his clients and himself. But the Ricketts family is out to get the most money for themselves, too. And it appears that they have decided the way to do that is to keep their payroll under the CBT, or as close to it as possible, even if that means losing Kris Bryant or Anthony Rizzo – or whoever. In effect, what the Ricketts family is saying is beginning to sound like what Larry Himes said back in 1992: We can’t sign Kris Bryant, a possible future Hall of Famer, as a free agent starting in 2022 because we have already agreed to pay Jason Heyward $20 million+ in 2022 and 2023 1
I understand that going over the salary cap costs money, but not going to the postseason costs money, too. Lower attendance. Less money for broadcasting rights. I am glad the Cubs have joined the Blue Jays in upping the money paid to their minor leaguers. That is good. But it’s also peanuts. They need to pay their major leaguers, too.
The Cubs have talked at times about overspending hurting them in the draft, too. I bought that argument for a while. But looking at it some more, the draft effect isn’t that big. First, it only kicks in when the payroll hits $250 million, and the Cubs are a long way from that. And even then, all that happens is that your first-round draft pick is moved back ten places (unless you’re in the top six, in which case it is the second-round choice that’s moved back). In others, not all that much – and definitely not worth giving up Kris Bryant for.
The Ricketts family so far has done a great job (see 2016), but you have to wonder if they are not getting a little Tribune-like at this point. Maybe there is a problem with the renovations going over-budget. Maybe the Marquee Network isn’t pulling in the money they expected because the cable/streaming market has changed in ways they didn’t expect/couldn’t have expected. If so, they need to be a little more open with the Cubs fans. We bought into their “we’re-going-to-be-bad-so-we-can-be-good” plan. If they are open and honest with us now, and they give us some good reasons for what they are doing, we’ll be with them in the future. So far, they are acting as if they are hiding something.
----------
1 One thing about signing your own guys as free agents: While there is always a risk in signing a free agent, it sometimes seems like the risk is higher in signing somebody you don’t know, as opposed to someone you do know (see, for example, Jason Heyward or Tyler Chatwood or, heaven forbid, Craig Kimbrel, as opposed to the deal they gave Anthony Rizzo back in 2013 or the one they gave Kyle Hendricks last year). It seems to me you are better off signing somebody you know, as opposed to somebody from a different team after a career year.
Comments