Pick a Side, Any Side

Cubs’ first baseman Anthony Rizzo and management are at a stalemate in negotiations over a new contract. The front office has offered Rizzo a deal said to be worth $70 million over five years while Rizzo wants more. How much more? Think Paul Goldschmidt money, probably, in the neighborhood of $130 million over the same length of time. Suddenly, my head hurts. According to baseball-reference.com, Rizzo has already made just under $72 million in his career. What, doubling that number isn’t good enough? Then again, the Cubs are worth a reported $3.36 billion according to Forbes, with another organization going as high as $4.14 billion. You think those numbers reflect the Ricketts’ abilities on the field? Their ballplayers—and, in the case of this franchise, their ballpark—have generated that value. So, why shouldn’t Rizzo get his fair share? Remember, owners are forever pushing salary caps or, as they like to say in baseball, the luxury tax. But there’s no luxury tax assessed by the Players’ Association when an ownership group sells. Nope, the money goes straight into some fat-cats’ pockets. It’s also worth noting that free-agent contracts drive salaries in a more general context. Not only do you have Rizzo thinking Goldschmidt, you have Rizzo and Goldschmidt having an effect, however indirect, over salary arbitration figures; both sides have to come up with a figure based at least in part on what players at a particular position command in salary. It may not be efficient, but it is a tide that lifts all boats, sort of. Oh, did I mention Francisco Lindor? The Mets recently offered their newly acquired 27-year old shortstop a ten-year, $325 million deal, which he turned down; Lindor wants a reported $385 million over twelve years, which would put him $41 million behind Mike Trout for richest-ever baseball contract. Nice work, if you can get it. I’m left with this question: What’s more insane, the Mets having $325 million on hand to offer one player, or Lindor wanting more? You decide. I can’t.