The Difficult Life of Felix Pie

It has been noted elsewhere that Felix Pie, 23 year-old erstwhile center fielder of the future for the Cubs, has been losing starts to useful player and known quantity Reed Johnson. Unfortunately, it feels like that when Felix starts, the Cubs are playing against the best starting pitchers in the game. Could it possibly be that the Cubs would mess with a young player's development by only playing him in the games in which he is most likely to fail? I decided to find out.

Felix Pie has started against the following pitchers:

Ben Sheets
Jeff Suppan
Dave Bush
Chris Sampson
Matt Morris
Aaron Harang
Nelson Figueroa
Aaron Cook
Ben Sheets
Jeff Suppan
Adam Wainright
Johnny Cueto

First of all, that's all of 12 starts in 32 games. If you exclude the first four games of the season, all of which Pie began in the starting lineup, that makes 8 out of 28 games.

Furthermore, of his 12 starts, Pie has faced Brewers ace Ben Sheets twice, Reds ace Aaron Harang once, Rockies ace Aaron Cook once, and Cardinals ace Adam Wainright once. That's 5 starts out of his 12 against pitchers currently ranked fifth, sixth, tenth, and thirteenth in ERA in the National League.

Of his remaining seven starts, one came against Reds phenom Johnny Cueto, who sports a 5.17 ERA but also 49 strikeouts in 47 innings, a 5-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio, and a 1.15 WHIP.

Of his remaining six starts, two came against Jeff Suppan, who is pretty much the very definition of a league-average innings-eater.

Of his remaining four starts, two came against Dave Bush and Chris Sampson, neither of whom is without promise but both of whom have been solidly bad pitchers so far this year.

The last two starts were against monumentally bad pitchers Matt Morris and Nelson Figueroa, although to be fair, the latter hurler isn't at all as bad as the former.

To sum up:

• Despite his youth and obvious need to get playing time in order to develop as a hitter, Felix Pie has barely started more than a third of the team's games
• When he does start, he often plays the best the opposition has to offer, with fully half of his starts coming against the aces of the opposing team, plus Johnny Cueto
• Only four of his starts have come against pitchers that would qualify as bad

Lou Piniella desperately needs to stop forcing Pie to cool his heels on the bench for days on end, only to play against the best of the National League. That's not fair, and more importantly, it's no way to develop a player.

Um...

As a baseball fan, I am naturally extremely skeptical of anything ever said by the upper-management types of any team. So I found this interview with Cubs Chairman Crane Kenney on Bleed Cubby Blue very interesting. While I find much of what he says to be, quite frankly, a bunch of bull, I will give the man credit for doing this in-depth interview with a Cubs blog. It can't be easy allowing yourself to be interviewed by a dedicated fan, who runs his own website, can ask any question he feels like, and doesn't have to worry about losing access if he pushes the envelope.

That said, while I understand that Kenney's main goal is to push the company line, I'm not sure I can countenance everything he says.

Near the end of the interview, Kenney admits that the he (and, by extension, the Cubs) has made a few errors in judgement:

We’re not gonna bat 1.000. I look back on my six years now and listen, we’ve made our mistakes. Taking the names off the jerseys -- probably not one of my better decisions. Some of the things we’ve done related to the rooftops, probably not.

It is comforting to know that the Cubs higher-ups have internalized the fact that they've made some very unpopular decisions over the last few years. The rooftop situation, when the Cubs tried putting up a screen to block the views of the game from tops of the buildings across the street, involved some major PR errors. Watching games from the rooftops is not only fun, but also a tradition Chicagoans view as one of the things that make the Cubs and Wrigley Field so unique. Even though those buildings are now owned by corporate entities who have turned the experience into a homogenized money-making venture, most people don't know that, and when the Cubs so blatantly tried to extract a fee from those businesses it appeared to be less a business dispute than a protection racket. I have no idea if Kenney was in any way responsible for the decisions surrounding the rooftops, but if were to find out he was, I'd be vastly less likely to trust his decision-making acumen.

Another illuminating interchange involved controversial reports that the Cubs are considering selling naming rights for Wrigley Field:

So we have three priorities. The first priority is to win a championship...

Second priority is we enjoy this ball field. We think it’s a great facility. We want to keep playing here. We want to win that championship here, on the corner of Clark and Addison.

Our third priority is we’d love the name to remain Wrigley Field. And what I said at the convention was: if changing number three lets me accomplish goals number one and number two I have to think about it...

if you look at the two most recent deals done in New York, Barclays for the new Nets arena and Citi for the new Mets stadium – you know $20 million a year for 20 years, it’s $400 million. $400 million could go into stadium renovation. $400 million could go into player payrolls, scouting, everything we’ve been talking about.

Well, I'm glad that one of the priorities for the team is to win a championship, but since that's pretty much sports boilerplate I'm going to move on to his subsequent two goals. He mentions that he wants to keep playing at Wrigley - as if that's a goal! Wrigley Field is a money-making facility along the lines of Fenway Park or...the Coliseum in Rome? I can't think of any other sporting locale that combines history, nostalgia, beauty, and fame into such a popular, profitable bit of property. The clear implication in this sentence is that there's a chance that the Cubs won't be playing in Wrigley Field one day, and because the context surrounding that statement is a discussion of naming rights, Kenney seems to be implicitly implying that unless the Cubs were to receive a large infusion of cash then terrible and drastic measures must be taken. The truth, of course, is that the Cubs will never leave Wrigley, because besides being an ATM, it is also beloved by just about everyone. Any attempt to leave the stadium would be met with such stringent opposition that the Cubs would be hard pressed to recover - it would be a PR move as disastrous as the the infamous "Small 'n' Flaccid" campaign. This is classic sports team threat-ese, the first step in the long campaign (usually) to extort money from the team's fanbase in the form of tax dollars for a new or renovated stadium. His third point indicates that in this instance, he's trying to subtly insinuate that the Cubs will be unprofitable or incapable of competing with their current profit levels unless they sell naming rights, which is almost certainly a lie (as Kenney points out in the interview, the Cubs are fifth in the majors in payroll, and who really doubts that they could go higher?).

The next section actually does include the team's demand that the citizens of Illinois subsidize the Cubs' revenues. Referencing the proposed plan to get the Illinois Sports Facility Authority involved in large-scale renovations of Wrigley Field, Kenney had this to say:

...the sources of funding for this transaction will come exclusively from inside this building. So what we would do is we would take what we call the transactional taxes that are paid here, sales taxes that are paid in the building on food, drink, merchandise, amusement taxes that are paid on ticket sales, use taxes, etc. Those taxes that are right now being paid inside the building for money being spent here, we would use a baseline year of 2007 and then all the incremental taxes that otherwise would have been paid into the general coffers above that baseline year would now go to support a bond issue which would renovate the stadium over 30 years. So the source of the funding comes from three places. One is Tribune would make a substantial contribution…

BCB: Tribune or new ownership?

CK: No, Tribune. Sam Zell was pretty clear. He said if we can do the ISFA transaction it has to be a three-way partnership between the team, Tribune as the current owner and the future owner, ISFA. So all three parties who have an interest in it will actually make a contribution toward it. So, Tribune would make a big contribution, the team would have an annual payment in this structure to repay these bonds. So backing up a minute… bonds would be issued, municipal bonds, tax free bonds. And again a pretty efficient financing structure because they’re being issued by the state. So tax-free bonds are issued. Those proceeds in that 200, 300 million dollar range, are used to make these renovations happen. And then those bonds are repaid over 30 years and the source of that repayment is Tribune contribution, team contribution and then this incremental transactional tax that occurs inside this building.

BCB: So in other words, there would be an increase in some things that people buy here in terms of concessions…

CK: If we raise the price of beer from $5.25 to $5.50, that will occur. It’s just the taxes that would have been paid above a flat level… let’s just say today all of those taxes in total are $10 million that go to the City in ’07. The city, the county, the state. So it’s $10 million today. In ’08, let’s say because of ticket prices going up, concession prices going up, that percentage that you pay of amusement tax, etc., makes that number $11 million or $12 million. The $1 or $2 million difference between the base number and the increment, that's what would go to repay the bonds. So, it’s a way for the city, the state and the county to participate by saying pay us what you did last year for the next 30 years but all the incremental taxes that otherwise would come to us that are generated in the building stay in the building.

BCB: So the baseline is the year before or there’s a baseline year?

CK: The baseline year would be chosen. I’m just using ’07 because that’s last year. So if we got the deal done this year you’d say okay, after the ’07 amount that was paid, all incremental amounts will go to service the facility and I think the elegance of it is what you’re essentially doing is asking people who use the building to support its improvement. So, if you’re buying your tickets, you’re buying your merchandise here, normally the taxes that are collected above the baseline would go into general use, but we’re basically saying you’re here, you’re spending the money at Wrigley Field and you probably enjoy the ballpark, let’s have that money instead of going into general funds, stay here for the renovations.

BCB: So no general tax revenue from the city, county, the state…

CK: And this is where all the fallacy, there’s no property taxes on people outside the building. There’s no additional sales on stuff that’s being purchased in our building. It’s just the increment above the baseline year.

Unpacking this somewhat, I think what Kenney is saying is this:

1. Municipal bonds will be issued to the tune of $200-300 million dollars to pay for the renovation costs
2. The team and the Tribune Corporation will contribute to the repayment of the bonds to some as-yet-unspecified degree (re: the minimum degree necessary to pull the wool over the eyes of the public)
3. The remainder of the repayment will come from a scheme in which taxes raised inside the stadium (on food, beer, merchandise, etc.) that goes to the city, county, and state will be capped at their current rate. For the next 30 years, as taxes increase, any tax revenues above that capped rate (for example, if taxes were 10% on beer in year before this scheme begins, and raised to 10.5% the following year, we'd be talking about money raised from that extra .5% only) will go towards repayment of the bonds

Now, Kenney was specifically asked how the involvement of IFSA would not involve taxpayer dollars, and this was his answer. The only reason this proposal is favored by the team is because sounds great to be able to say that the bond repayment will come from taxes on things bought only within the stadium - as if this means that the bond repayment will be entirely financed by the team, the Trib, and Cubs fans who choose to attend the games. The problem is, it's bunk.

Every one of the tax dollars going to repay the bonds will NOT be going to the general coffers of the city, county, and state. So whatever that total is - and you can bet it will be large, because the Trib and the Cubs will want to pay as little as possible for the renovations and also 30 years is a very long time - it will be money not available for busing and schools and parks and libraries and fixing potholes. Which means that the true cost will be paid in (probably large) part by the taxpayers, despite Kenney's assurances otherwise.

Oh, and if this scheme sounds familiar, it may be because you've heard of its cousin, tax increment financing.

There are other interesting tidbits in the interview, including updates on the sale of the team (short version: no comment) and a discussion of this year's ludicrous schedule. I highly recommend the read, because I'm pretty sure it serves as a rough guide for the next few years' worth of bitter fights between Chicagoans and the greedy Cubs management.