Why Furcal turned down the Cubs

[IowaCubsFan]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere...I haven't seen it if it was....from Barry Rozner's column in the Daily Herald today...

 

The Dodgers’ Rafael Furcal told Sports Illustrated that he turned down the Cubs’ offer because they asked for a clause in his contract that would void the deal if he were convicted of another drunken-driving offense, since he has had two in the last four years.

 

Said Furcal to SI, “I’ve learned. I don’t need (a clause) in my contract. Think about it: Who has more to lose, the team or me?’’

 

On the surface, that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request from a team offering as much as five years and $57 million. Furcal took three years and $39 million from Los Angeles.

 

I really find it hard to blame the Cubs if that's true.

 

Agreed. I'm glad that Hendry wanted to insert that clause, both because Furcal would be horribly overpaid, and since character is important.

 

Perhaps Furcal would have agreed to it if they had offered him another two or three million a year. If the Cubs had Furcal today, Derek Lee wouldn't be missing two months of baseball, and Pie might be trolling center field already.

 

Considering we gave up two major league pitchers for a guy with an OBP below .300, I'd say the extra two or three million a year would have been worth it to grab Furcal.

[anemic offense]

How would a DUI affect his play though? Would he go to jail if he got another? I doubt teams have to pay their players when they are in jail anyway.

 

i don't think it was about whether or not he was going to jail and if they would have to pay the three days he would stay there, but rather more about the potential black eye on the organization that sort of incedent would cause, and the effect throughout the whole ballclub as a result of that.

 

 

If he had to go to court for another DUI, I think that could play out longer than three days in jail. A judge could recognize that it was his third time and then the only way for him to learn would be a significant period of jail time. That could be a couple of months maybe even longer depending on the judge.

Here's the info for Illinois law:

 

Third DUI Conviction - Class 4 felony

 

Minimum six-year loss of full driving privileges.

Possible imprisonment for up to three years.

Maximum fine of $10,000.

 

And the celebrity with good lawyer penalty?

 

Judge: I hereby sentence you to play for the Cubs for the remainder of the season. It truly is the harshest sentence I can give you

[Laura]

Is the Tribune Company running a baseball team or a Sunday School?

 

I wonder what other off-field clauses they want in contracts these days.

 

ETA: And I wonder whether Hendry's and Dusty's contracts will include such concern over alcohol intake.

[dalgreen]

I finally can give Hendry credit for doing something right. I agree with adding the clause. I wonder if his previous drunk driving incidents were two times he made poor decisions or if he's an alcoholic who just doesn't want to get help?

 

Here's the question regarding Furcal's contract offer: if he signed with us (I'm glad he didn't ), that would likely mean Rusch doesn't sign for the amount of money he did, Perez doesn't sign for the amount of money he did and Jones may not have gotten the money he did, and the trade for Pierre doesn't happen meaning Nolasco and Pinto stay in the Cub organization. I guess the question is, which was worse signing him or not signing him?

[Sammy Sofa]

All things point to Hnedry going after Pierre and Furcal. Though getting Furcal wouldn't have put Jim at the mercy of the Fish, so he wouldn't have had to give up as much to net Slap.

[OleMissCub]

bet im drunker thn furcal ever has been in his whole life. difference is that he drive drunk and i never do. i dont wnat to kill anyone.

[anemic offense]

bet im drunker thn furcal ever has been in his whole life. difference is that he drive drunk and i never do. i dont wnat to kill anyone.

 

Is that sworn testimony? I'm pretty sure you "threatened" to kill at least one person in the game thread tonight. :lol:

[Careless]

bet im drunker thn furcal ever has been in his whole life. difference is that he drive drunk and i never do. i dont wnat to kill anyone.

Unless they're in possession of bullion or wenches.

[Laura]

I wasn't crazy about the Furcal offer, so it's fine with me if that's the reason he turned down the contract.

 

For those who support the clause, would you have any problem with the Cubs insisting on a clause in all new contracts that could void them if the player had to serve any jail time resulting in missed playing time? That seems to be the main issue with Furcal (if it was simply a stance against DUIs, it should be in every contract).

[SCCubbieFAN]

I wasn't crazy about the Furcal offer, so it's fine with me if that's the reason he turned down the contract.

 

For those who support the clause, would you have any problem with the Cubs insisting on a clause in all new contracts that could void them if the player had to serve any jail time resulting in missed playing time? That seems to be the main issue with Furcal (if it was simply a stance against DUIs, it should be in every contract).

 

That's a very interesting question Serena. But I speculate the players asso. would balk at such a clause in every players' contract.

[Mark Priors Calves]

Here's the question regarding Furcal's contract offer: if he signed with us (I'm glad he didn't ), that would likely mean Rusch doesn't sign for the amount of money he did, Perez doesn't sign for the amount of money he did and Jones may not have gotten the money he did, and the trade for Pierre doesn't happen meaning Nolasco and Pinto stay in the Cub organization. I guess the question is, which was worse signing him or not signing him?

Perez had already signed by the time the negotiatons were heating up between the Cubs and Furcal. Perez was supposedly friends with Furcal and was going to try to convince him to sign with the Cubs.

[dalgreen]

I wasn't crazy about the Furcal offer, so it's fine with me if that's the reason he turned down the contract.

 

For those who support the clause, would you have any problem with the Cubs insisting on a clause in all new contracts that could void them if the player had to serve any jail time resulting in missed playing time? That seems to be the main issue with Furcal (if it was simply a stance against DUIs, it should be in every contract).

 

Good question, Serena. My take is that I don't look at this as a moral issue, but instead a strict contractual issue that helps ensure that any potentially reckless or dangerous behavior will not occur. Similar to the many contract clauses prohibiting riding motorcycles, playing pick-up basketball, sky diving, flag football, etc. Yes, every professional athlete who drinks runs the risk of drinking and driving, but if you've been convicted two times already, I think that puts you at a higher risk than someone who has never been pulled over or convicted. That's how I look at it.

 

And, also, just suppose that it's known in the baseball circles that Furcal is an alcoholic (again, suppose) who doesn't admit it and won't seek help. This could also be one way of helping him avoid a potentially hazardous situation. Again, I don't know, but it could be a possibility. I would be interested in knowing if there is anything Derrek Lee is prohibited from doing like playing pick-up basketball or something.

[dalgreen]

Here's the question regarding Furcal's contract offer: if he signed with us (I'm glad he didn't ), that would likely mean Rusch doesn't sign for the amount of money he did, Perez doesn't sign for the amount of money he did and Jones may not have gotten the money he did, and the trade for Pierre doesn't happen meaning Nolasco and Pinto stay in the Cub organization. I guess the question is, which was worse signing him or not signing him?

Perez had already signed by the time the negotiatons were heating up between the Cubs and Furcal. Perez was supposedly friends with Furcal and was going to try to convince him to sign with the Cubs.

 

Thanks for the knowledge; I didn't know that Perez had already signed.

[wade]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere...I haven't seen it if it was....from Barry Rozner's column in the Daily Herald today...

 

The Dodgers’ Rafael Furcal told Sports Illustrated that he turned down the Cubs’ offer because they asked for a clause in his contract that would void the deal if he were convicted of another drunken-driving offense, since he has had two in the last four years.

 

Said Furcal to SI, “I’ve learned. I don’t need (a clause) in my contract. Think about it: Who has more to lose, the team or me?’’

 

On the surface, that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request from a team offering as much as five years and $57 million. Furcal took three years and $39 million from Los Angeles.

 

I really find it hard to blame the Cubs if that's true.

 

Agreed. I'm glad that Hendry wanted to insert that clause, both because Furcal would be horribly overpaid, and since character is important.

 

Perhaps Furcal would have agreed to it if they had offered him another two or three million a year. If the Cubs had Furcal today, Derek Lee wouldn't be missing two months of baseball, and Pie might be trolling center field already.

 

Considering we gave up two major league pitchers for a guy with an OBP below .300, I'd say the extra two or three million a year would have been worth it to grab Furcal.

 

I can't figure out this part of your quote. I'm on board with your disappointment over Pierre's play at leadoff, but can't figure out any ability to keep Lee from getting hurt.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can't figure out this part of your quote. I'm on board with your disappointment over Pierre's play at leadoff, but can't figure out any ability to keep Lee from getting hurt.

 

Furcal's the one who ran into Lee.

[wade]

I can't figure out this part of your quote. I'm on board with your disappointment over Pierre's play at leadoff, but can't figure out any ability to keep Lee from getting hurt.

 

Furcal's the one who ran into Lee.

 

Got it! Thanks.

[CubsBullsBears]

You could also say if Eyre hadn't flipped the ball, Lee wouldn't miss 2 months. :roll: :roll:

[wade]

You could also say if Eyre hadn't flipped the ball, Lee wouldn't miss 2 months. :roll: :roll:

 

That's what confused me. I thought he was saying if Furcal was on the team at shortstop he wouldn't have had a collision on the play.

 

I completely forgot it was Furcal who ran into him. :oops:

[Laura]

I wasn't crazy about the Furcal offer, so it's fine with me if that's the reason he turned down the contract.

 

For those who support the clause, would you have any problem with the Cubs insisting on a clause in all new contracts that could void them if the player had to serve any jail time resulting in missed playing time? That seems to be the main issue with Furcal (if it was simply a stance against DUIs, it should be in every contract).

 

Good question, Serena. My take is that I don't look at this as a moral issue, but instead a strict contractual issue that helps ensure that any potentially reckless or dangerous behavior will not occur. Similar to the many contract clauses prohibiting riding motorcycles, playing pick-up basketball, sky diving, flag football, etc. Yes, every professional athlete who drinks runs the risk of drinking and driving, but if you've been convicted two times already, I think that puts you at a higher risk than someone who has never been pulled over or convicted. That's how I look at it.

 

And, also, just suppose that it's known in the baseball circles that Furcal is an alcoholic (again, suppose) who doesn't admit it and won't seek help. This could also be one way of helping him avoid a potentially hazardous situation. Again, I don't know, but it could be a possibility.

 

I don't disagree with the reasoning; I guess the distinction between the moral/contractual issues seem a bit fuzzy in this specific instance and that's what gives me pause. If it were a player that people had coveted -- say, Brian Giles -- and Giles subsequently said that he turned down the Cubs because of a similar clause, there might be more concern ... or maybe not if he had the same history as Furcal.

 

Meh, I'm still undecided.

 

I would be interested in knowing if there is anything Derrek Lee is prohibited from doing like playing pick-up basketball or something.

 

Prior and Wood said after the Jason Williams' motorcycle accident that they had clauses preventing them from snow skiing and skydiving among other things (I just remember those two).