The only hope left for Mesa to keep the Cubs is for: 1) the city to raise the funds, or 2) the Arizona legislature to meet in special session to pass a funding bill.  Both scenarios are unlikely.

In order for Mesa to raise the funds needed to build a new Spring Training facility priced at more than $80 million, they would have to tax their citizens (and the County would have to do the same) at levels that would be confiscatory.  Area residents would simply not stand for it.  In fact, passing such a tax would likely lead to the economic demise of the entire area.  It simply isn’t in the cards.

The Arizona legislature could be called back into session, but House Majority Leader John McComish doesn’t see that happening.  McComish proposed the bill that would have placed a surcharge on all Spring Training tickets, as well as an additional tax on rental cars, in order to raise the needed funds.  MLB foolishly fought the bill tooth and nail until the proposal finally lost steam.  Now, Arizona is facing the loss of the Cubs and MLB is facing a future in Arizona without the Cubs to help fund it.

The new law will also have an impact on Major League Baseball.  About a quarter of all MLB players are of latin decent.  Some are U.S. citizens, many are not, although they are in the U.S. legally.  On the minor league level, the influx of non-citizens is even more pronounced.  For instance, the Arizona Rookie League will begin soon and will consist of nearly 150 ballplayers from Latin American countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic.  Many of these players do not speak English, a sign that could very easily raise suspision of a person’s legal status in the mind of a law enforcement officer.

And that’s just one league.  Fifteen MLB teams have developmental facilities in Arizona and they routinely send young Latin-born players to those facilities.  This new law hits MLB and it’s players especially hard.

While MLB has voiced their concerns, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) has done even more.  MLBPA Executive Director Michael Weiner issued a statement opposing the law and indicating that if it is not repealed or amended, the MLPBA “will consider addditional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of its members.”  What exactly those “additional steps” might be were not spelled out, but I have some ideas.

One step the MLBPA could take is to encourage it’s Latin players to refuse to play games in Arizona.  The quasi-strike could go one step further and involve all MLB  major and minor league players, regardles of their racial or ethnic background.  Such a step would be very expensive for the players, particularly those in the minor leagues who are assigned to a league or camp in Arizona.

A less expensive manuever would be to encourage players not to sign with the Arizona Diamondbacks or maybe even with teams that train in Arizona.  It would be difficult to manage this from the MLBPA’s perspective, but could be effective if managed correctly.

A much more likely scenario is for the MLBPA to pressure MLB to pull the 2011 All-Star Game out of Arizona.  The D-Backs are supposed to host the Mid-Summer classic, but MLB and the Players Association could make a very strong statement by pulling the game and refusing to host it in Arizona again until the law is repealed or modified.

The NFL did something similar in Arizona when the state refused to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr, Day as an official holiday.  Arizona was the only state at the time that had not recognized the federal holiday.  The NFL pulled a Super Bowl game from the state and did not return until well after Arizona had finally recognized MLK Day.

Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez is the first player to come out publically saying that he will not attend the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona if the law is still in effect.  Gonzalez, who spent part of his youth in Tijuana, Mexico, said that he would support any decision the MLBPA made concerning the new law and he said that he hoped MLB would move their Spring Training camps out of the state, although he admitted that would be an extremely difficult thing to do.

Losing the All-Star Game would not only be an embarrassment for Arizona, but it would also have a financial impact, albeit a short-lived one.  If pulling the All-Star Game was not enough to get the attention of politicians in Arizona, then more drastic measures would have to be taken.  Neither MLB nor the MLBPA can afford to stand by while a state (any state) enacts measures that target a large number of its members, even if unintentionally.

I am fully aware that illegal immigration is a serious problem in this country.  Even moreso in a border state like Arizona.  However, emotional actions rarely solve emotional issues.  Arizona needs to take a step back and address the issue in a rational way that does not violate the constitution nor entangle Latin ballplayers who are in the country legally. 

Arizona also needs to recognize that baseball is an important part of their economy.  Whether it involves working together to keep the Cubs in Arizona, or dealing with the illegal immigration problem, the state needs to act in a way that nurtures their ties with MLB and improves the business and financial climate for MLB and the many communities and businesses that rely on MLB to remain in Arizona.

Starting Position Players

The big news at the beginning of Spring Training was whether or not the Cubs would give in to the temptation of starting the year with Starlin Castro in the starting lineup.  As of now, it appears Castro’s debut is going to have to wait.  Yesterday, Castro was sent to minor league camp to reduce the team’s big league roster to 40.  That doresn’t mean he can’t be recalled, but it would be unlikely for the Cubs to send him to minor league camp at this juncture, just to have him break camp with the big team.

That means that Ryan Theriot will be starting the year at shortstop.  That’s not a surprise, but it’s something that needed to be worked out through Spring Training for us to know for sure.

Who’s on second?  That’s a question Cubs fans have been asking since the end of last season.  I’m not sure we know yet.  I expected Jeff Baker to win the job in Spring Training, but if he has, it hasn’t been obvious.  And for what it’s worth, Mike Fontenot is still listed at the top of the depth chart at second base.

Those were the only real question marks concerning the position players heading into Spring Training.  So it appears the Cubs starting lineup will look like this:

• Catcher: Geovany Soto
• First Base: Derrick Lee
• Second Base: Mike Fontenot
• Shortstop: Ryan Theriot
• Third Base: Aramis Ramirez
• Left Field: Alfonso Soriano
• Center Field: Marlon Byrd
• Right Field: Kosuke Fukudome

Bench Players

The Cubs bench is a little harder to pin down.  At the moment, it looks like Fontenot will move over to cover shortstop if needed, meaning that Baker will come into the game at second base.  Unfortunately, that leaves Andres Blanco as the odd man out.  Blanco is out of minor league options, so don’t be surprised if he ends up playing elsewhere this year.

Backing up the infield corners will be either Chad Tracy or Kevin Millar.  Millar is probably the more versatile player (having played a considerable amount in the outfield as well), but Tracy is probably the better pinch hitter off the bench.  Tracy also has the advantage of batting left-handed.  The Cubs have acted like they would like to carry both players on the bench.  Would that work?

In the outfield, Xavier Nady will be one bench player (he can also play first base).*  Who will be the other?  The battle is between Sam Fuld and Tyler Colvin.  I think it’s fair to say that Colvin has had the superior Spring Training, but that may not matter.  Fuld is the better defender and the better pinch running option.  Plus, because it would appear that Colvin has a higher ceiling that Fuld, the Cubs will likely want to get Colvin plenty of at-bats and playing time.  Look for Colvin to start the year in AAA and Fuld to ride the pine for the big team.

*Arizona Phil at The Cub Reporter suggests that Xavier Nady could start the year on the DL, allowing Kevin Millar to make the team.  Because Nady has about $2 million in incentives that he likely won’t be able to reach if he goes on the DL, he could ask to be traded.  The fallout should be interesting.

The team also needs a back up catcher and that man is Koyie Hill.  No surprise there.

Here’s what the bench should look like:

• Jeff Baker
• Chad Tracy
• Kevin Millar/Xavier Nady
• Sam Fuld
• Koyie Hill

Starting Pitchers

We know the top three spots in the starting rotation will be taken by Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Randy Wells.  Ted Lilly will start the season on the DL and will not be available until May (or June).  The final two spots will come down to a battle for one spot between Tom Gorzelanny and Sean Marshall (left handers), and Carlos Silva and Jeff Samardjzia (right handers) for the other.

At the moment, it appears that Marshall and Silva have the early lead.  That means that Gorzelanny will make his way to the bullpen and Samardzjia will either join him in the bullpen or start the season in AAA.  I think it makes more sense to send him to AAA, given the Cubs insistence that Samardzjia’s future is as a starting pitcher (an insistence I disagree with). 

For what it’s worth, ESPN Chicago’s Bruce Levine disagrees with me.  He believes that Tom Gorzellany and Carlos Silva have the inside track for the final two spots in the starting rotation.  In my mind, Marshall has had a better Spring Training than Gorzellany and arguably has been the more tested pitcher in the past.  Remember, one year ago, Gorzellany could not even crack the Pirates starting rotation.  Regardless, Levine is going with the former Pirate to be the Cubs number four (or five) starter.

I don’t know the answer to this question, but it’s one I’ve been asking all month long: Why can’t both Marshall and Gorzellany be in the starting rotation?  Or more specifically, why don’t the Cubs want two lefties in their starting rotation?  Despite his Spring Training control problems, Gorzelanny appears to be a better pitcher than Silva or Samardzjia, so why force one of the two right handers into the starting rotation?

For now, the starting rotation looks like this:

• Carlos Zambrano
• Ryan Dempster
• Randy Wells
• Sean Marshall
• Carlos Silva

Bullpen

That brings us to the bullpen.  At the start of Spring Training, the bullpen is where the majority of the question marks were for the Cubs.  At this point, we still don’t have all of the answers, but we’re getting closer.

First, we know that Carlos Marmol and John Grabow will start the year in the bullpen.  Gorzellany will join them, assuming Marshall makes the starting rotation.  That leaves four more spots.

We know that Lou Piniella has commited another bullpen spot to Justin Berg.  He’s looked good this spring and has earned the spot.

That leaves three spots.  In my mind, the front runners for those spots are Esmailan Caridad, John Gaub, and Mike Parisi.  James Russell, Marcos Mateo. Mitch Atkins, Dave Patton, and Jeff Gray are also in the mix, but are longer shots.

My projected bullpen looks like this:

• Tom Gorzellany
• John Grabow
• Justin Berg
• John Gaub
• Esmailin Caridad
• Mike Parisi
• Carlos Marmol

Keep in mind that this is my best guess on how things are going to shake out and it could all be thrown out the window if the Cubs pick up a player released by another team at the end of Spring Training.  That’s how they ended up with Reed Johnson, remember?

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Cubs picked up another bullpen arm.  At the moment, it looks like Caridad will be the set up man before moving to Marmol to close out the game.  Is Caridad ready for that assignment?  The more important question is, are Piniella and Jim Hendry comfortable with Caridad taking on that assignment?  We’ll know the answer to these questions and many more in just a couple of weeks.

Serrano defected from Cuba in April 2009 after being arrested in Cuba in January 2009 for attempted illegal departure.  At least we know he’s persistent.  The right-hander began pitching in the Cuban professional baseball league at the age of 16.  He is believed to be 20 or 21-years old, although MLB Trade Rumors is now saying he may be 22.

Oddly, it has been reported that Serrano threw two simulated innings for Cubs scouts, striking out four and giving up one run on an infield hit, but Muskat reports that a “baseball source” (what does that mean?) denied the report. 

Although Muskat’s article didn’t mention money, the website CubanBallPlayers.com says that Serrano will be paid $250,000 by the Cubs.  Muskat’s article does say that Serrano still must take a physical and there is additional paperwork that must be completed before the deal is finalized.

It will be interesting to see where Serrano slots in with the Cubs.  I would think a guy who has been pitching for five years in the Cuban Serie Nacional would be able to go directly to Double-A or Triple-A, but that remains to be seen.

**********

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the true value of on-base percentage.  I’m very accepting of advanced statistics, but I think they need to be viewed in the proper perspective.  Baseball is a relatively complex game and expecting to look at a set of numbers (or worse yet, just one number) in order to understand the game is unrealistic (Not to mention that it takes some of the fun out of the game).

Paul Sullivan with the Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article talking about how the Cubs’ front office is beginning to look more and more at statistics in their evaluation of players.  I thought the story painted a pretty amatuerish picture of the Cubs front office.  Jim Hendry is quoted in the article saying he and his staff have always done more statistical analysis than people thought.  He also pointed out that the Cubs have had a “numbers cruncher” (i.e. Director of Baseball Information) on the staff for the past seven years.  Even so, Sullivan made it sound like the Cubs had just heard about advanced statistics.

 Rob Neyer at ESPN.com then had to jumped on the story.  Neyer’s article, entitled Cubs Threaten to Join 21st Century, was kind of snarky.  Neyer, a guy who has made a career out of analyzing baseball statistics, seemed almost personally offended that a professional baseball team in this day and age would not have the same type of religious fervor over statistics that he has.  Neyer was especially snarky when he wrote, “But Jim Hendry admits that he’ll ‘always be a scouting guy first.’ I wonder if the Cubs would be better if he just went back to being a scout, period.”  That was kind of mean.

I like Neyer and I appreciate his statistical perspective on the game.  But sometimes he (and others) become almost apoplectic when anyone suggests that baseball can be viewed through something other than a statistical lens.  Jim Hendry is not Bill James.  Okay, we get it.  Is it really necessary to suggest he should lose his job because he doesn’t worship baseball statistics the way some others (I’m not naming names) do?  That seems a tad bit harsh to me.

By the way, Jim Hendry probably should lose his job, but it’s not because he doesn’t take baseball statistics as seriously as Rob Neyer.

**********

This next bit of information is almost too weird to believe.  As you know, all of the teams in the Cactus League (other than the Cubs) are opposed to the funding plan proposed in the Arizona House of Representatives.  The proposal calls for an additional dollar of tax on rental cars and an 8% tax on tickets to all Cactus League Spring Training games.  I think the opposition is silly, short-sighted, and will eventually come back to bite the other teams, but what do I know?

Anyway, the Cactus League held their annual kickoff breakfast this past Tuesday at HoHoKam Stadium in Mesa, Spring Training home of your Chicago Cubs.  The breakfast is an annual league affair designed to give teams the opportunity to thank their host cities shortly before the Cactus League season begins.  

Because the event was being hosted in Mesa (the host rotates each year), four Cactus League teams decided to boycott the breakfast in protest over the proposed legislation that would be used to build a new spring Training home for the Cubs.

According to a report on the Arizona Republic website, the White Sox, Angels, Dodgers, and Reds were the four teams who refused to participate. 

“In a nutshell, we continue to feel it’s fundamentally wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” Angels spokesman Tim Mead said, acknowledging that his team stayed away for that reason. “We just fundamentally disagree.”

If it’s “wrong to implement a tax on loyal baseball fans,” then who should be taxed?  If you’re going to tax someone so you can build a baseball stadium, doesn’t it make sense to tax someone or something that has to do with baseball?  Apparently, it’s not “fundamentally wrong” to tax people who rent cars in Arizona.  At least Angels spokesman Tim Mead didn’t say he thought it was wrong.

Josh Rawitch of the Dodgers had this to say:

“The Dodgers and White Sox simply feel it is wrong to ask fans coming to Camelback Ranch to pay for another team’s new stadium with a surcharge on their tickets.”

But who paid for the Dodgers new stadium, Josh?  Wasn’t it the fans of other teams, as well as people who couldn’t care less about baseball? 

It’s important to remember that the four teams who boycotted the kick-off breakfast in Mesa all have benefitted from taxpayer funding for their stadiums.  It was taxpayer funding that lured the White Sox, Dodgers and Reds away from Florida into the Cactus League.  It was also taxpayer funding that build Camelback Ranch and lured the White Sox out of Tucson, a move that ended up sticking the taxpayers of Tucson with a $30 million bill and no Cactus League team.

Seriously, these teams could not be more hypocritical if they tried.  And even if you oppose a proposed tax, is boycotting a breakfast really the best way to voice your opposition, or is it just a completely classless, immature move?  Arizona House of Representatives Majority Leader John McComish thinks it’s the latter.

“I think it’s a shame to boycott a kickoff breakfast,” McComish said. “That’s what petulant children do. In this case, they already had their turn at bat, they got their stadium.”

In the end, I don’t see this working out well for the other teams in the Cactus League.  If funding can not be found for the Cubs new stadium in Arizona, they’ll likely leave for Florida where funding is already in place and waiting for them.  And when they do, the teams of the Cactus League will lose their biggest draw.  By some estimates, the Cubs generate 40% of the economic impact that the Cactus League has on the Arizona economy.  With fewer Cubs fans, attendance will likely drop across the league, resulting in lower Spring Training revenues for the teams left behind. 

Honestly, the strategy being employed by the owners of the other teams doesn’t seem very well thought out.  Of course, when all is said and done, they’ll still have new stadiums to go back to that someone else has paid for.  So they have that going for them.

In Fontenot’s defense, a lot was asked of him.  Being handed a big league starting gig is a lot of responsibility, especially for a guy who had never been given that chance before.  So you could say, Fontenot didn’t rise to the occasion.  He was given an opportunity and he didn’t take advantage of it.

But Fontenot wasn’t just asked to be the Cubs starting second baseman.  When Aramis Ramirez when down with a shoulder injury, Fontenot was asked to move over to third base — a position he had never played in the big leagues – to replace the former all-star.  To Fontenot’s credit, he played a credible third base, but his hitting never did take off.

I opined here on a few occasions that Mike Fontenot is not the type of starting second baseman that a team with a $140 million payroll should be giving a starting job to.  Despite that fact, he was given a chance in 2009 and failed to take advantage.  My hope was that the Cubs would make a move to add a legitimate big league second baseman for 2010, but that didn’t happen.  Jim Hendry didn’t seem to be interested in adding a second baseman during the off season and the Cubs have gone to Spring Training with Fontenot and Jeff Baker fighting it out for the starting gig.

But last week, Lou Pinella said that he would give Fontenot an opportunity at shortstop with an eye toward being Ryan Theriot’s back up.  In his career, Fontenot has played a total of four games at shortstop.  In those four games, he has had a total of four chances and has committed two errors.  He has a fielding percentage of .500 and a UZR150 rating at shortstop of -257.0.  In case you’re not familar with these stats, let me just say that they are really bad.

If Fontenot makes the team as the back up shortstop, he will likely displace Andres Blanco, a superb defensive shortstop.  Blanco has a UZR150 rating of 12.4.  In 2009, in 138 plate appearances, Blanco hit .252/.303/.341 with one homerun and 12 RBI.  Blanco is the very definition of a defensive replacement.  He’s the epitome of the type of player you want on your bench as a late inning replacement.

To make things even a bit more complicated, Blanco is out of minor league options, so if he doesn’t make the 25-man roster, he’s almost assuredly gone.  The Cubs won’t be able to send him to the minors unless he clears waivers, and it’s unlikely that he would clear waivers.  Some other team will view Blanco as a great option as a backup infielder, and they’ll claim him.

Meanwhile, the Cubs will have Mike Fontenot as their backup middle infielder.  A guy who barely hits better than Blanco (and there’s a good argument to be made that he doesn’t hit as well as Blanco), but cannot field anywhere near as good as Blanco.  Why would the Cubs do this?

There are a couple of reasons.  If Fontenot can make the team as the backup shortstop and backup/starting second baseman, a spot will be open on the 25-man roster.  That spot would likely be taken by Kevin Millar (assuming Chad Tracy already has a spot on the bench).

Fontenot also has the “advantage” of being left handed.  The Cubs are going to be overly right handed again in 2010, so they’d like to have Fontenot’s left-handed bat on the bench.  Forget for the moment that Fontenot isn’t much of a hitter.  He’s left-handed and sometimes, that’s all that matters.

I’m a big “team chemistry” guy, and keeping Millar around would likely be good for team chemistry.  At least that’s the general consensus.  But I’m also a big “let’s win some games” kind of guy and I’m not sure that losing the services of Andres Blanco in favor of Kevin Millar would be a good thing from a win-loss standpoint.  In my opinion, it’s more important for the Cubs to be successful on the field than it is for them to be fun and well-liked. 

It’s still very early in Spring Training.  A lot can change.  Giving Fontenot an opportunity to play some shortstop in Spring Training is much different than giving him a regular season job.  Who knows, the “Fontenot experiement” may be over this week.  But until it is, I will remain a bit nervous.  I remember what happened the last time the Cubs decided to become more left handed, and it wasn’t pretty.  I’d just as soon not see that mistake repeated.

Opposition to the plan to fund the Cubs new spring Training facility put forth by Arizona House Majority Leader John McComish continues to build.   The plan calls for an 8% tax on all Spring Training tickets.  Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the White Sox, is leading the charge against the proposed legislation.  Now, all of the MLB owners with Spring Training facilities in Arizona have gone on record as opposed to the funding plan.  MLB Commissioner Bud Selig has also voiced his opposition to the plan.

The thing that gets me about the opposition is how hypocritical it is.  In essence, the crux of the opposition is that it is unfair for fans of the other 14 teams in the Cactus League to help pay for the Cubs Spring Training facility.  Is it more fair for an Arizona resident who has no interest in baseball at all to pay a tax that would help build the facility?  Remember, most of the MLB owners opposed to the current plan have already received taxpayer funding to help build and/or maintain their Spring Training facilities.  These are the same owners who have no problem charging their fans premium ticket prices when the Cubs come to town.  “It’s okay to gouge the fans,” these owners seem to be saying, but only if the money goes in the owners’ pockets.

The solution being offered by Bud Selig and MLB is that the state should simply use tax-increment financing.  This method of financing has been used in the past to finance big projects.  The idea is that the projects will eventually generate tax dollars, so the state (or county) will front the money to the developer to build the project and then they’ll get the money back once the taxes start to flow in.  It’s a nice idea, but is currently not allowed in Arizona.  For Selig’s plan to work, the Arizona Legislature would first have to propose, debate, and pass a bill that would allow the state to use tax-increment financing.  It’s a little naive on Selig’s part to expect all of this to happen before the end of the year.

In addition to MLB owners and Bud Selig, opposition is mounting at the grassroots level to oppose any referendum that comes before the voters of Mesa to help fund the Cubs new facility.  Initially, Mesa voters were told that no local taxes would be used to fund the project.  However, even if the tax plan being proposed in the Arizona Legislature passes unaltered, it will likely only raise about $58 million.  That’s $26 million less than the anticipated cost of the new facility.  Mesa taxpayers will be looked to for at least part of the shortfall.    Because of this, local opposition in Mesa is already mounting.

The way the deal will work if everything falls into place is that the Cubs will purchase a piece of land and then turn it over to the City of Mesa.  Mesa will build a new ballpark on the land and then give the Cubs exclusive rights to use the stadium, other buildings, and land.  The Cubs will not have to pay rent.

Because of this proposed arrangement,  the biggest threat to the funding proposal may come from the conservative Goldwater Institute in Arizona.  Clint Bolick, Director of the Institute, pointed to a recent Arizona court decision that makes it unconstutional for a government entity (in this case, the City of Mesa) to provide a benefit to a private entity (the Cubs) without receiving a commensurate benefit in return.  According to Bolick, the only thing the Cubs are offering is to show up, which is inadequate under the Arizona Supreme Court decision. 

As Bolick points out in his op-ed piece in the East Valley Tribune:

Any baseball fan would want to have the Cubs here. And certainly the Cactus League is a valuable asset. But at some point, incentives become illegal subsidies, and taxpayers are asked to do too much.

Whether the current proposal is unconstutional or not is almost immaterial.  If the proposal draws a lawsuit and a long and costly legal battle ensues, the Cubs new Spring Training home will be in jeopardy.  If the Goldwater Institute files a lawsuit, how expensive will it be for the State and/or the City of Mesa to fight it?  Will they be willing to fight it?  What will it cost?  At what point does support of the proposal become more trouble than it’s worth?

And from the Cubs prospective, do they really want to get themselves in the middle of this fight?  When they agreed to negotiate exclusively with the City of Mesa, they were given assurances that funding for the project would be found.  If funding becomes a big question mark (bigger than it is now), are the Cubs better off turning their attention to Naples?

I know there is a large and vocal portion of Cubs fans who believe they should stay in Arizona come hell or high water.  But at what point does the effort become futile?  Naples is offering to build a Spring Training home for the Cubs using primarily private money.  The tax money that would be needed for the project has already been approved.  There’s very little that needs to be done to move forward with the project other than getting the go ahead from the Cubs.

The Arizona project is far from a sure thing.  Funding is currently a huge question mark.  Even if the current proposal passes the legislature, it awaits a potentional court challenge.  If the court challenge doesn’t materialize, the project still has the problem of finding approximately $26 million which will likely have to come out of the coffers of the City of Mesa.  Will voters be willing to hand the Cubs a $26 million check?

There are many obstacles that the current proposal in the Arizona Legislature must overcome.  Although the proposal passed committee, it will face much stiffer opposition in the full house.  If it clears that hurdle, a lawsuit (or threat of a lawsuit) from the Goldwater Institute could still derail the entire project.

Everyone wants the Cubs to stay in Arizona, but at the moment, no one wants to help pay the cost of keeping the team in the Cactus League.  And all the while, Naples is sitting on the sidelines with what appears to be a no-muss, n0 fuss proposal.  It will be interesting to see how long the Cubs loyalty to Arizona lasts before they change directions.

But this time, they’ve gone too far.

The Cubs recently decided that they want to leave their Spring Training digs in Mesa.  Their contract with the city includes a clause that allows them to opt out, so they decided to opt out.  Although their current training facilities in Mesa are not horrible, they are among the oldest in the Cactus League and are too small.  They also are not set up particularly well for the Cubs purposes.

So, the Cubs opted out of their lease and the city of Mesa went to work to try to keep them in town.  After some back-and-forth with Mesa and Naples, FL, the Cubs decided to stay in Mesa.  The only stumbling block left in the path of officials in Mesa to close the deal is to find the funding to build the new Cubs facility.  The current price tag is $84 million.

The Arizona legislature promised to help and they came up with a funding proposal that would tax rental cars and tickets to Cactus League games.  Not much has been said about the rental car tax (despite the fact that the tax would make Arizona one of the most expensive states in the nation in which to rent a car), but there has been plenty of clamor over the tax on Cactus League tickets.

The opposition to the ticket charge has been led by White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf.  He was out in front of everyone else to oppose the tax.  This, despite the fact that Reinsdorf’s White Sox abandoned a taxpayer funded Spring Training facility in Tuscon to relocate to a more expensive taxpayer funded spring Training facility in Glendale.  It’s also worth noting that the White Sox play their regular season home games in a facility that was heavily subsidized with taxpayer funds.  Hypocricy, thy name is Jerry Reinsdorf.

I can’t tell you Reinsdorf’s motivations, but his opposition appears to be borne of contempt for the Cubs.  The money for the tax will not come out of his pocket.  The tax is on top of the price of the ticket and will amount to about $2.00 on a $25.00 ticket.  Although the tickets will be slightly more expensive, it is doubtful that the tax will have any meaningful negative impact on ticket sales.

In fact, if the Cubs end up leaving Arizona because the tax can not be passed and the funds to build the new facility can not be secured, no one will be hurt more by the move than the White Sox.  The Cubs are by far the biggest draw in the Cactus League and the biggest recipient of this benefit outside the Cubs is the White Sox.  If Chicagoans are going to travel to Arizona to see the Cubs, they might as well also see the White Sox while they are in the area.  But if these fans are not traveling to Arizona to see the Cubs, they also will not be purchasing White Sox tickets.  Besides being hypocritical, Reinsdorf’s opposition to the tax also appears to be bad business.

Among MLB owners, Reinsdorf is a bit of a ring leader and soon other MLB team owners followed his lead.  All of the owners of teams in  the Cactus League are now on record opposing the tax.  They all want the Cubs to stay in Arizona, they say, but they don’t want a tax on tickets to their games to pay for the Cubs to stay.  It’s unfair, they say, for a tax on Spring Training tickets for all teams games to benefit just one team (i.e. the Cubs).

To paraphrase what the owners are saying, they are okay with taxpayer funding for MLB team Spring Training facilities, but not if it involves taxing in any way, shape, or form, MLB Spring Training.  It’s okay if the State wants to tax hotel beds, or auto licensing fees, or bridge tolls, etc.  A tax on anything and everything is okay with them, as long as it doesn’t involve anything having to do directly with MLB Spring Training.

It also doesn’t matter that the biggest generator of tax funds for the Cubs new facility will be the Cubs themselves.  What could be fairer that that?

The Commerce Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives held hearings this past week on the proposed tax.  According to Jim Ripley of the East Valley Tribune, all MLB teams in the Cactus League had representatives on hand to testify against the tax.  In addition, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, the same guy who encouraged the Cubs to stay in Arizona, made a surprise appearance in opposition to the tax.  “Cubs, we want you to stay, but don’t ask us to be involved in helping you fund your new facility.”

Ripley’s article focuses a bit on the opposition of Tom Dorn who was at the hearing representing the Arizona Diamondbacks.  Ripley wrote:

Arizona Diamondbacks representative Tom Dorn chided Mesa and the Cubs for its ballgame ticket surcharge and car rental tax solution.  He proudly pointed out the Diamondbacks’ had avoided  being a burden on others by getting the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community to build a Cactus League stadium for them and the Colorado Rockies.

Now that’s chutzpah or worse—from a team whose downtown Phoenix stadium was 71 percent publicly financed, including a quarter cent sales tax levied on taxpayers throughout the county, not just in Phoenix.

We got ours.  The heck with Mesa and the Cubs.

Later in his article, Ripley points out that, by holding Spring Training on land owned by the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, purchases made at the stadium are not subject to sales taxes.  That means that, although the Diamondbacks did not use taxpayer funds to build their Spring Training facility, in the long-run, they are denying the state sales tax on purchases made at the facility.  Not only did the D-Backs use taxpayer funds to build their stadium in Phoenix, and then denied the state sales tax revenue by locating their Spring Training facility on Indian land, but they then went before the Arizona Legislature to brag about it.  Nice…

The bill eventually passed committee by a vote of 6-2, but faces an uphill battle in the full house.  The “Gang of 14,” as the Chicago Tribune’s Paul Sullivan calls the other Cactus League owners, have significant political clout in Arizona and have made it clear that they are going to mount a vigorous fight against the tax.

Meanwhile, the Cubs are sitting on the sidelines allowing the politicians to battle it out.  As Cubs President Crane Kenney points out, the tax was not the Cubs’ idea:

Kenney said the surcharge was not the Cubs’ idea, despite the public perception. He said he did not know who came up with the plan. 

“We did not come up with the tax where we are the largest payer,” he said.

One of three things will eventually happen.  The first possibility is that the tax will pass and the Cubs new Spring Training facility will be built.  Second, this particular bill will not pass, but a different tax will be passed to fund the facilty.  This is the path the “Gang of 14″ is pushing for.  The third possibility is that no funding mechanism will be passed by the end of the year and the Cubs will then be free to re-engage Naples or anywhere else that is interested in hosting the Cubs and their Spring Training facility. 

Stay tuned.  The hypocricy and stupidity is just getting started.

According to Carrie Muskat of MLB.com, Carlos Zambrano, Randy Wells, Jeff Samardjzia, Sean Marshall, Jeff Stevens, Tom Gorzelanny, Mike Parisi, David Patton, Jeff Gray, John Gaub, Vince Perkins, and Koyie Hill showed up at least two days early.  Most are there to get a jump on Spring Training, but at least one, Tom Gorzelanny, said he simply wanted to escape Chicago’s frigid winter.

**********

The Cubs are expected to go to an arbitration hearing later this week with Ryan Theriot.  Maury Brown from The Biz of Baseball put together some thoughts on Theriot and his closest comparable shortstop, Stephen Drew.

This same discussion took place last week on The Cubs Reporter.  I agree with those who feel Stephen Drew is the superior shortstop.  The problem with this opinion is that the stats don’t really support it.  With the except of having greater power, Drew pales in comparison to Theriot in most other stat categories.

My prediction is that Theriot will win the arbitration hearing (he’s asking for $3.4 million, the Cubs are offering $2.6 million).  Since Drew signed for $3.4 million, I guess that figure is fair.  Even so, I have a hard time agreeing with it.

**********

Does your head ever hurt when you read baseball statistics.  Mine sometimes does.  I’m trying to become more stat literate, but sometimes, understanding the stat requires more math ability than I possess.  Plus, it sometimes seems like a stat is slicing and dicing other stats to come up with the same information.

Stats guru John Sikels of MinorLeagueBall.com feels the same way:

The newest stuff is becoming so granular that I’m having problems making sense of it. I’m a humanities guy, and the most advanced math is beyond my ability to completely comprehend. My personal opinion is that the many of the newest metrics (at least in regards to hitting and pitching) are just more complicated ways to say the same basic truths.

I wrote previously about my desire for one offensive stat that could tell you everything you’d ever want to know about a hitter.  Sure, it’s pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but the wish was borne of my desire to condense all of the mathemastically complicated stats into one stat that even I can understand.  Unfortunately, baseball stats are probably too complicated for that. 

I’m not sure that many of the new stats are really helping us understand baseball any better.  If you first have to understand arcane mathematical formulas before you can understand the stat, then most of the population will never understand most stats.  Plus, are these new stats really telling us anything new or are statisticians and math majors simply showing off because they can?  I could probably figure out 15 different ways to tell you that the grass needs to be cut, but do you really need more than just one easily understood way?

Whenever anyone starts to question the value of baseball statistics, they run the risk of being labeled a heretic.  I don’t mean to criticize stats per se.  My concern is with the stats that convey the same information as another stat, but in a more convoluted way.  If you’re not going to provide any new information, why create a new statistic?

**********

Scout.com listed the 25 best prospects in baseball this past week.  Two Cubs graced the top 25.  Josh Vitters came in at number 11, while Starlin Castro showed up at number 22.

I don’t necessarily agree with the placement of the two Cubs prospects, but I have to admit that it is somewhat impressive that the Cubs have two prospects on the list.  The A’s, Marlins and Twins were the only other clubs to have two prospects on the top 25 list.

**********

David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune comes to the defense of Jerry Reinsdorf and his opposition to what is being referred to as the Cubs tax.  If you already know my opinion on Reinsdorf and the other hypocrite MLB owners who have Spring Training facilities in Arizona, then you probably won’t be surprised about how I feel about Haugh’s article.

Haugh writes:

From here, Reinsdorf’s refusal to play ball looks more like a matter of principle than anything personal and a smart move well within his rights as a shrewd businessman.

The words “Reinsdorf” and “principle” should not be used in the same sentence.  Reinsdorf’s opposition to the Cubs tax has nothing to do with principle.  It has everything to do with money, or more accurately, Jerry Reinsdorf’s money.

Was Reinsdorf being “principled” when his White Sox abandoned Tuscon in favor of Glendale and the $184 million taxpayer-funded Spring Training facility there?  Was he being principled when he left the taxpayers holding the bag for more than $30 million in unpaid bonds when he decided to vacate the White Sox Spring Training home in Tuscon for greener (pun intended) pastures?  Was he being principled when he put his hand out for taxpayer funding that helped him build U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago?  Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t know the meaning of the word “principle.”

I also have to take exception to Haugh’s contention that Reinsdorf is being a “shrewd businessman” by opposing the Cubs tax.  If the funding scheme the Arizona legislature has devised falls flat on it’s face and the Cubs leave Arizona, Reinsdorf’s White Sox will be among the biggest losers.  Many fans attending White Sox Spring Training games are in Arizona primarily because of the Cubs, or at least in part because of the Cubs.  If the Cubs leave, so will many of the fans.  And no one will be hurt more by this exodus than the White Sox.

Adding a dollar surcharge to all Spring Training tickets is a small price to pay to keep the Cubs in Arizona.  The surcharge will likely have a negligible impact on overall ticket sales, but if the Cubs leave Arizona, the other MLB teans will see significant decreases in Spring Training attendance.  If Jerry Reinsdorf was really a “shrewd businessman,” he would be in favor of the Cubs tax, not fighting it tooth and nail.

White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf was one of the first to voice his opposition to the plan.  I find his opposition to be not only hypocritical, but also very short-sighted.  After all, Reinsdorf was first in line when the City of Chicago implemented a tax to help fund the construction of U.S. Cellular Field, as well as the remodel of Soldier Field that took place a few years ago.  As I understand it, the tax continues to be collected and the White Sox still receive money to help with the maintenance of their ballpark. 

In referring to Reinsdorf hypocrisy, Mesa Mayor Scott Smith said, “The irony is delicious.”  Smith was referring to the fact that Reinsdorf’s White Sox had a taxpayer funded Spring Training facility in Tucson which they abandoned in favor of a taxpayer funded facility in Glendale.  If it benefits him directly, Reinsdorf has no problem with taxpayer funding.

It’s important to point out that the funding scheme proposed by the Arizona Legislature does not tap in to any existing revenue streams the other 14 MLB owners have at their disposal.  The ticket surcharge will be paid by fans attending Spring Training games in Arizona and then will be passed on for use by the state to fund the Cubs Spring Training facility.  In other words, the proposal won’t cost the other owners a dime.

I don’t have any numbers to back this up, but my guess is that a significant chunk of the White Sox Spring Training revenue is generated because the Cubs are also in Arizona.  If the Cubs had decided to relocate their Spring Training home to Naples, the entire Cactus League would have suffered, but the White Sox would have likely suffered the most.

Reports indicate that the Cactus League generates approximately $128 million per year for the Arizona economy.  Of that amount, the Cubs generate approximately $50 million per year.  That’s quite a healthy chunk, especially considering that the Cubs are just one of 15 teams that train in Arizona.

Reinsdorf has always struck me as a bit of a baby.  Despite the fact that they won a World Series in 2005, the White Sox have not been able to unseat the Cubs as Chicago’s favorite team.  Reinsdorf has never tried to hide his disdain for the Cubs and this is just another example of him being opposed to something simply because it could benefit the Cubs.  It’s childish and short-sighted, but that’s par for the course with Reinsdorf.

To his credit, Cubs President Crane Kenney said the exact right thing when he was asked about Reinsdorf’s opposition.  “This is not our issue,” Kenney said.  “This is an issue for the State of Arizona to represent.”

Kenney is exactly right.  The Cubs didn’t make the proposal, the State of Arizona did.  The only thing the Cubs have done is give Arizona a year (or so) to put the funding in place.  If they can’t do it, the Cubs are free to turn to Naples or anywhere else they choose to negotiate a possible new Spring Training home.

This is Arizona’s problem and now they are going to have to deal with irrational opposition from the likes of Jerry Reinsdorf.  How Arizona handles this could determine whether or not they are able to put the funding in place to keep the Cubs in Mesa.