No-Trade Clause is No Scare Tactic

By: Chicago Sports Review

If you’ve ever been asked to sign a prenuptial agreement, perhaps you can feel what the Cubs feel today. No-trade clauses in baseball are one of the more peculiar constructions in sports contracts, because, like the pre-nup, they mean everything, and nothing at all.

When Derrek Lee and agent Casey Close finally were able to come to a deal with the Cubs and general manager Jim Hendry, Lee made it clear that not only did he love playing in Chicago, he made it clear that he loved the town so much that the chance to move him elsewhere would be completely on his terms. This can be a huge hitch in any contract, but should be considered different in baseball, a sport with such dramatically uneven markets.

How uneven?

Lee knows the Cubs would never move his productive bat and glove were they in a contending situation, and the Cubs know that Lee would never waive his no-trade clause to go a to a team that is a loser, or has a small payroll.

Well, consider that the hometown “discount” Lee took to stay at Clark & Addison will net him $13 million per season. After some cost-cutting efforts this past off-season, the Florida Marlins will visit Chicago with a team payroll of not quite 15 million. I know, this isn’t terribly remarkable. This is, in fact, sports, and if the United States drops their match against Ghana in this summer’s World Cup, we won’t start playing the GDP match-up game. Still, it’s important to grasp the difference in pay structure to grasp the importance - or complete meaninglessness - of a no-trade clause.Mostly, it means nothing, except some twisted feelings. Ask George Costanza about the time he tried to end his engagement by asking his fiance Susan for a pre-nup. She laughs at him, points out that he’s broke and that she’s the one with all the money, and tells him to get the papers. She’ll sign. Pure Costanza.

And it may have been the same way when Close and Lee asked Hendry and the Cubs to sign off on the no-trade clause. Sure, Hendry would have preferred it wasn’t there - flexibility is the oil that greases a good GM machine - but he probably played the Susan card, and quietly didn’t fret over the thought of laying a signature to such a demand.

Why? Hendry negotiated the contract assuming Lee would be in good health and productive throughout the length of the deal. That was a given. But if Lee wasn’t healthy or productive, it’s not likely that Hendry would be able to move him anyway. Secondly, the size of Lee’s contract makes it almost inevitable that he would only be sought after in a trade scenario by a contender. Since contenders in baseball are typically only made up of the upper-echelon of spenders, the Cubs know that in the event that a deal is in place to move Lee, he would only be going to a situation he would probably prefer over the Cubs.

Lee knows the Cubs would never move his productive bat and glove were they in a contending situation, and the Cubs know that Lee would never waive his no-trade clause to go a to a team that is a loser, or has a small payroll. So the no-trade is only a threat in the sense that it means Lee can leave a loser for a winner, one with a higher-than-average payroll.

In other words, the no-trade clause works more like a pre-nup between two rich people, or two poor people. It doesn’t merit much of a threat, and is more a psychological commitment to the tenets of good business than it is a show of love or an acknowledgement of a lack of trust.

What’s Wrong With Jim?
I mean Thome, and really, my answer is: nothing at all.

I use this space only to point out that yesterday morning, before the Sox faced the Tigers, through a full week, Jim Thome had yet to strike out, while he had three homers and eight walks. I tended to wonder if that was a good thing, as I wrote that it might concern me that Thome is not striking out at all.

For one, the guy is a home run hitter, and not named Ted Williams or Joe Dimaggio. So to err is human, to strike out is to swing hard. If Thome is not striking out, it would tell me that he is a) not being aggressive enough, (not likely) or b) pitchers are pitching around him to get to a notoriously slow-starting Paul Konerko. Yesterday, however, Thome homered again, struck out twice, and Konerko looked locked in, with a double, and a two-run shot off Joel Zumaya, and what looked to be a 98+ mph fastball.

And Freddy?
Nothing wrong with Garcia either. The maddening thing about baseball is the concept of analysis based on any body of work of less than a month. We have to analyze, but with such a limited sample set, the science is a false one at this point.

Freddy Garcia was better yesterday than he was in his first start, and he will be better in his next start than he was yesterday. Sox fans should be glad that they have pitchers who are good enough that they don’t need to go balls to the wall during the pre-season and prove themselves. These guys have routines. Garcia’s velocity, like other guys who typically log 200+ innings, will improve for the next month.

Just remember how Garcia, and other Sox starters who pitched a ton of innings, looked against Houston and Anaheim last year in October.

They haven’t forgotten how to pitch.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share This Article

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comment On This Article