I’ve heard the complaints.
Too many A’s.
Too many teams winning trades.
Too much optimism.
Well congratulations.
The Chicago Cubs and Charlotte Knights have finally broken me.
The Cubs have traded catcher Chris Hoiles, while eating a staggering $400,000 of the $500,000 remaining on his contract, to the Charlotte Knights in exchange for catcher Todd Zeile and a 1998 third-round pick.
And after staring at this trade for far longer than I care to admit, I’ve reached one conclusion:
Why did either team do this?
Let’s start with Hoiles.
Because what a bizarre player he has become.
One of the names Kansas City ownership referenced when lamenting players they lost without compensation, Hoiles has done almost nothing since leaving the Royals before the 1996 season to justify that sentiment.
The numbers are horrifying.
Over two seasons in Chicago, Hoiles posted a .163/.287/.338 slash line.
A .625 OPS.
That’s ugly enough on its own.
Then you remember he has 16 Eye and 16 Power.
Which somehow makes it worse.
Last season was particularly offensive.
A .144 batting average.
A .277 OBP.
A .307 slugging percentage.
Nineteen home runs.
Eighty-three walks.
It’s the statistical equivalent of seeing a car on fire while somehow still obeying every traffic law.
None of it makes sense.
The only thing keeping hope alive is the BABIP.
Hoiles has posted a .182 BABIP during his Cubs tenure.
That’s not bad luck.
That’s comically bad luck.
The question Charlotte has to answer is whether we’re looking at two fluky seasons or whether this is simply what happens when a catcher with nine contact runs into major league pitching every day.
Apparently the Knights are willing to find out.
Hoiles immediately becomes the favorite to start behind the plate, likely sharing time with Eli Marrero.
Which means Charlotte is essentially trading away production and roster certainty in exchange for a lottery ticket.
Now let’s talk about the Cubs.
Because this side isn’t much easier to understand.
Chicago eats $400,000 to acquire Todd Zeile.
Todd Zeile.
Not Mike Piazza.
Not Ivan Rodriguez.
Todd Zeile.
To be fair, Zeile is actually ranked higher at catcher than Hoiles in the positional rankings.
He offers a much safer offensive floor.
He’ll almost certainly produce more in 1998.
And Chicago clearly believes it can contend this season.
Viewed through that lens, the move makes sense.
Sort of.
The Cubs are paying for predictability.
They’re paying for competence.
They’re paying to stop watching Chris Hoiles hit .144.
Those are all reasonable goals.
And they do pick up a third-round selection for their trouble.
Still, it’s difficult to ignore the financial side.
Eating $400,000 is a lot.
Especially when the reward is Todd Zeile becoming your starting catcher.
Then again, Chicago was one of the loudest organizations pushing back against the original salary estimates this offseason.
And to their credit, they benefited tremendously from the revised numbers.
Most notably with Mike Piazza.
So perhaps they looked at the savings elsewhere and decided they could afford to spend some of it here.
Occasionally complaining works.
Who knew?
Ultimately, this feels like one of those rare trades where both teams achieved their objective while simultaneously becoming slightly worse.
Charlotte gets salary relief and a rebound candidate.
Chicago gets stability and predictability.
Neither side gets a player I’m particularly excited about.
And that’s the problem.
The more I look at this trade, the more I think both clubs would’ve been perfectly fine doing absolutely nothing.
Trade Grades
Charlotte Knights: C
After hitting an absolute grand slam in the Barry Bonds trade, this one has me scratching my head. Hoiles has upside if the BABIP gods finally stop tormenting him, but Charlotte gave up the safer player and still assumes risk.
Chicago Cubs: C
The Cubs get the higher-floor catcher and a draft pick, but eating $400,000 to make Todd Zeile your new starting catcher isn’t exactly the sort of move that gets the blood pumping.
Sometimes the best trades are the ones you don’t make.
This might be one of them.