Arbitration

The Cubs have four arbitration-eligible free agents, Rich Harden, Kevin Gregg, Reed Johnson, and Chad Fox, and it appears they will not offer arbitration to any of them. I would suppose that this decision is a no-brainer, and that it is a good sign that the Cubs are willing to cut their losses and admit mistakes, but some bloggers and fans seem to think this is controversial and, especially in the case of Harden, a mistake.

Part of this, I suppose, is rooted in a lack of understanding of what the arbitration offer means. If a team offers a free-agent arbitration, it means that the player can choose to accept the offer, which usually results in a pay increase even if the player is expendable or has not performed to expectations. The player can refuse the offer, in which case, if he is a Type A or Type B free-agent, the club is entitled to compensation in the form of a draft pick. So the risk here for the team is that if you are not committed to the guy in the first place, you run the risk of being stuck with him at a high price.

Obviously, the case of Chad Fox is simple. He has been disabled now for two seasons and every attempt to come back has resulted in aggravating his injuries. He should have retired two years ago, and it is fairly certain that he will now. The other obvious case is Gregg. Cubs' fans and the Cubs want no part of this guy and the real problem is trying to comprehend why they ever wanted him in the first place and why they stuck with him as the closer for so long. Nobody wants this turkey for significant money, so if the Cubs had made an offer and if he were smart, he would have taken it no questions asked.

Johnson is a little bit more of a problem. He had a great season in 2008, when the platoon with Edmonds was a real difference-maker for the Cubs and their failure to replace this tandem's productivity one of the basic reasons for their decline in 2009. But Johnson at his best is a platoon player with a history of injuries. The reason the Jays cut him loose in 2008 was worries about his back that caused him to miss a lot of time the prior year. He had a recurrence of the back problems before he broke his foot last year. I would sign him to a cheap one-year deal as a fourth or fifth outfielder, and I rather suppose the Cubs have tried to do this and failed. But the decision not to offer arbitration is the right decision.

With respect to Harden, when he is good he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Yes, yes, yes, he has shoulder problems and one must be careful with him, but that is just the point. He cannot make thirty or more starts in a season, and when he does start, more often than not, he lasts six innings on a good day. He is looking for a multi-year deal with second or third stater pay. This isn't going to happen, so the Cubs are wise to cut their losses here as well.

Lots of bloggers and sportswriters, for example, David Kaplan here, are questioning the decision and further speculating that this leaves a hole in the rotation that must be filled. Both these views are wrong, and Kaplan's post in particular betrays, as many of the comments that follow his post correctly observe, a real lack of analysis and savvy about baseball in general on his part.

One speculation is that the Cubs have some inside knowledge about how bad Harden's injuries really are. I don't think you need to go that far. I think the Cubs have decided he is not worth the risk of a multi-year deal and that they had pretty much made that decision towards the end of last season.

However, remember what happened with Harden in September after they pulled back on the waiver deal that would have sent him to Minnesota for some minor-leaguers. That's right, he didn't pitch, or actually he pitched a total of twelve innings before they mutually agreed to shut him down. I've got to think that in the back of Harden's mind at least was the thought that any further effort would only hurt his chances on the free-agent market. I'm not suggesting that the guy should have pitched when he was hurt or in danger of getting hurt, but from the Cubs' viewpoint at least, you've got to think that if he accepted arbitration, you'd be in the same boat next year and it could be more costly to the team if they were seriously in contention.

It's really weird, but I find myself in agreement or at least some sympathy with most of the decisions Hendry is making so far. Maybe it is the new owners or maybe it is some sort of parallel reality, but it gives me the creeps. Anyway, the real problem for the Cubs is going to be Piniella and getting him on board with the direction they want to take. Piniella is an old guy who is managing in his, by his own declaration, last campaign. He is going to want to win now, and that could be costly for the Cubs' long-term interests.