Monday's big news out of the winter meetings was the trade of Alex Gonzalez from Toronto to the Chicago Cubs for Felix Heredia and a player to be named later. The winner of this trade will ultimately be determined by the identity of the player to be named later. However, I can take a look at the players that we do know were involved in the deal.

On the surface, the Cubs look to have done fairly well for themselves. They needed to find a shortstop after refusing to offer Ricky Gutierrez arbitration, and while Gonzalez is certainly a step down, it is not a large step. Felix Heredia could have a lot of value, but Chicago hasn't really used him in a way that maximizes that value. Therefore, while they are giving up a good pitcher, it isn't that big of a loss from their end.

As I've already said, the big variable is the player to be named later, whose identity won't be released at least until after the Rule V draft on Thursday. Toronto won't want to name someone they might need to add to their 40-man roster to avoid losing him right away and probably also want to see which players are taken in the draft and where they land. The Cubs have the clear advantage in the deal if Toronto receives a guy like shortstop Nate Frese or catcher Robert Machado (an improbable pick as Ricciardi has said the player will most likely come for AA or AAA). A selection of a mid-level minor leaguer like Mike Meyers or Jeff Goldbach would put the trade at about even. If Ricciardi has managed to steal away a real prospect like Carlos Zambrano or even Beanball Ben Christianson (who while not exactly socially desirable is a good pitcher), then he'll have swindled Chicago worse than he did when he identified Eric Hinske as the player to target in exchange for Scott Chiasson and Miguel Cairo while he was still with Oakland.

Tim's pick for the player to be named later is 1B/3B minor leaguer Ryan Gripp. He's right-handed unlike most of the other Toronto infield prospects, and he falls into both the category of players that Chicago might be likely to trade and those that the Blue Jays would want to wait until after the Rule V draft to name. I tend to lean against this pick, because right-handed or not, the Jays have a lot of infield talent already. However, other than a feeling that the player will be a pitcher, I don't have a prediction of my own.

From the Bluejays' perspective, they have dumped the hefty contract of an average shortstop for whom they have a replacement ready and waiting and picked up a good left-handed pitcher at the very least. As I've mentioned, the Cubs have not pitched Heredia in a way that maximizes his full potential. They have been using him as a lefty one-out guy but he's had some success against righties when used in a larger role. My major concern is that these skills may have atrophied in the last few years. However, Heredia is still young enough that he should be able to reclaim them if given the opportunity, possibly even as a starter.

As for the loss of Alex Gonzalez, the concept of replacing a high-priced, no-better-than-average player with a younger guy who has tremendous upside is not a new one. They should expect value for him in a trade, but as with Heredia and the Cubs, each organization gains more than they lose.

Oh, and Izzy and the Cardinals finalized their deal Monday.

Contraction News

This section was originally only going to contain an update on MLB's response to the subpoenas issued by the Florida Attorney General. These subpoenas requested information from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the Florida Marlins, and Major League Baseball regarding the November 6th meeting at which the owners voted to contract, information specifically relating to the fate of the two Florida teams.

The deadline for the information to be turned over to the AG was this coming Thursday, so rather than supply the requested data all three parties filed a suit in order to obtain a restraining order preventing the AG from enforcing the subpoenas. They argue that their anti-trust exemption spares them from such an inquiry by the state AG. The AG is operating under the state court ruling that revoked baseball's anti-trust exemption as it relates to franchise relocation. The matter has not reached the U.S. Supreme Court since the state court ruling, and there have been rulings in other states that have disagreed with its position, so the law is not black and white on this matter. What is it about the Florida Court system?

Since reading of this development, even more significant contraction news has been reported. According to the AP, MLB and the players' association are on the verge of coming to an agreement that would put a halt to contraction for 2002. I thought this would be good news when I first read the headline. After reading the whole of the article, I can only hope that the unnamed sources are dead wrong about what is actually going on and are just trying to make themselves sound important.

The two sides supposedly worked on the agreement all of Monday, as opposed to continuing with the hearing before arbiter Shyam Das, who was to rule on the grievance filed by the players with regards to contraction. In its reported form, in exchange for a delay of contraction for the 2002 season, the players association would grant the owners the ability to choose to contract in the future without negotiation, with only the terms of contraction, such as the specifics of a dispersal draft, subject to negotiations with the union.

As it stands now, most people believe that it is already too late in the off-season for contraction to take place and none of the delaying factors have really been resolved, so there doesn't seem to be any immediate danger to player jobs. Given this, I see no reason that the union should sell itself and the fans out for the future. To agree to this proposal would be a shortsighted action aimed only at protecting this year's free agent class.

An interesting idea surfaced during one of my recent conversations with Tim regarding this whole mess. Innumerable columnists, including the two of us, have commented and complained that transactions, in particular signing and trades, have been slowed and hampered by the mere possibility of contraction. The twist that came up during our discussions that I have yet to see suggested elsewhere is that the decision to contract could be considered de facto collusion by the owners to suppress the free agent market.

While it is a bit of a leap, if two columnists who have to spend time writing about everything in baseball and not just contraction issues can make it, it is reasonable to think that it might have occurred to representatives of the players union for whom this is a full-time job. When there are still potential avenues such as this one through which to gain the same ground and possibly more than that they would gain through this reported agreement with the owners, I will have to do a thorough check of my current MLBPA support if an arrangement of allowing the owners to contract at will is reached.

I could include my thoughts regarding the anti-trust hearings now, but I think I've already gone on long enough for today. Anyone with an interest in a well thought out commentary on the proceedings should read Rob Neyer's article on ESPN.com. He covered many of the same topics that I originally intended to encompass in my own article. At this point, I will likely just try to throw out a few of my ideas on the proceeding that I have not seen expressed elsewhere. I should be able to include those thoughts at the end of tomorrow's article unless Tuesday brings an overwhelming number of transactions from the winter meetings.