Jacque Jones Deal to Marlins is Off Because of Hendry

[cubfan1955]

Someone needs to sit JJ down and explain to him that he is not, even at his best, an everyday player and with Floyd on the roster he is not even a plattoon candidate.

 

I don't think it needs to be explained to him. How long has he been on the trade block now? He's wanted out of Chicago for quite some time. MLB has spoken. If the best offer for Jones is a fringe prospect if the Cubs pick up his entire salary for the remainder of his contract, doesn't sound like anyone else values Jones as a starter, either.

I think it does need to be explained to him. He still thinks he should be playing everyday. I have no idea why though. Maybe his agent calls him up everyday telling him he is good.

[jersey cubs fan]

I want Jones gone. But paying almost all his money for him to play elsewhere and getting nothing of value back in return is not a good deal for the Cubs. If Hendry decided he couldn't make that deal, good for him. If somebody up the chain of comman decided they wouldn't authorize that deal, good for them. Hendry created this mess, he's got to fix it.

[Soriano12]

 

Well if Selig had the balls, he would have found a way to get a salary cap in place. You will never get ever single owner in baseball to participate is some verbal agreement to not drive up salaries, you need a strict control system, like the cap.

 

It's not about having the balls. That's cheapshot nonsense. The system that makes it impossible for him to get a cap was in place long before he had any power. The only possible way they get a cap would involved a lockout/strike that lasts a year or two. I, for one, would prefer to avoid that scenario.

 

If that is what needed to be done so be it. MLB would have won in the end and the players would have caved.

 

The NFL bit the same bullet to get a cap in place, and it was the best thing ever for their sport.

 

I don't believe you understand much about the history of collective bargaining in baseball and football.

:?: There is no reason a salary cap could not have been implemented in baseball. No reason. Instead we are left with financial control system that relies on a "gentlemans agreement" between owners?

[RedIvyCub]

Suntimes[/url]"]One report from Florida said in the deal being discussed, the Cubs would have picked up all but the prorated minimum major-league salary this year and the 2008 minimum -- or all but about $600,000 of Jones' remaining salary obligation.

 

That would seem to be a sure deal-breaker, given the team's ownership uncertainty and difficulty in making financial obligations beyond this season. But Hendry said, ''What happened today really had nothing to do with his remaining contract.''

 

The commissioner's office, which was not happy with the Cubs' huge offseason spending, might have played a role. All cash exchanges exceeding $1 million must be approved by the commissioner.

 

Why in the world would the commissioner's office care what the Cubs are spending?

 

Is this a serious question?

 

The commish works for the owners. The owners, as a group, want to profit. Individually, the owners don't want anybody else spending money, because that drives up costs, and cuts into profit. Realistically, that's not going to happen. So, instead, they prefer to see teams spend logically, and not throw out crazy contracts that drives up the costs for everybody. In other words, they don't want to see guys handing out 3 year contracts with no-trade clauses to middle relievers, or 8 year 136 million deals for guys that aren't top of the line superstars. Owners got pissed at Hicks for the original ARod deal. Owners get pissed at Steinbrenner when he brings his payroll from $95m to $200m in just a couple of years. Owners get pissed when desperate GMs give insanely large contracts to mediocre pitchers, because that drives up costs for the rest of the pitchers.

 

Selig doesn't want to see teams throw money around willy-nilly like Hendry did this offseason. It drives up the costs for everybody else and makes his life difficult, by having to deal with other owners bitching and moaning.

 

Well if Selig had the balls, he would have found a way to get a salary cap in place. You will never get ever single owner in baseball to participate is some verbal agreement to not drive up salaries, you need a strict control system, like the cap.

 

Just remember that the MLBPA is one of the most powerful unions in the country so that is why there isn't a cap in place.

[Roast]

While I understand what you're saying.... Mail him a poster sized picture of George Steinbrenner/Brian Cashman and a note that says "suck it"

 

He doesn't much like that either, but the Yankees big spending actually results in them being regular participants in the postseason, and that drives ratings, which leads to profit. MLB likes the Yanks in the postseason. If Hendry spent big but built a great team, MLB would like that to, because the Cubs can draw in ratings. What pisses him off is seeing a Cubs team spending like mad for mediocrity.

 

Oh, so they're just like us then.

[Chocolate Milk]

is this one of those things where we are never going to know the true tale?

 

Uh, I think we pretty much know what happened. Hendry basically laid it out for us.

[NCCubFan]

There is no reason a salary cap could not have been implemented in baseball. No reason.

Actually there is a very good reason it could not be implemented. Specifically, the owners don't have the power to implement one on their own and the players clearly showed (by striking in 1994 and wiping out the postseason) that they'd never accept one. You seem to think the owners simply need to say there's a cap and that makes it so, but it doesn't work that way.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

is this one of those things where we are never going to know the true tale?

 

Uh, I think we pretty much know what happened. Hendry basically laid it out for us.

 

yes, they fleeced us with the Pierre deal and were attempting to do so again -- Jim wised up to their evil games this time

[cubfan1955]

 

Well if Selig had the balls, he would have found a way to get a salary cap in place. You will never get ever single owner in baseball to participate is some verbal agreement to not drive up salaries, you need a strict control system, like the cap.

 

It's not about having the balls. That's cheapshot nonsense. The system that makes it impossible for him to get a cap was in place long before he had any power. The only possible way they get a cap would involved a lockout/strike that lasts a year or two. I, for one, would prefer to avoid that scenario.

 

If that is what needed to be done so be it. MLB would have won in the end and the players would have caved.

 

The NFL bit the same bullet to get a cap in place, and it was the best thing ever for their sport.

If you were a mlb player and you can see what the NFL's cap has done would you agree to it?

 

And just as importantly for the NFL, they have revenue sharing. Equal amounts for all teams. The baseball owners can't even agree on that because the haves do not want to share with the have nots.

[Soriano12]

There is no reason a salary cap could not have been implemented in baseball. No reason.

Actually there is a very good reason it could not be implemented. Specifically, the owners don't have the power to implement one on their own and the players clearly showed (by striking in 1994 and wiping out the postseason) that they'd never accept one. You seem to think the owners simply need to say there's a cap and that makes it so, but it doesn't work that way.

 

It also didn't help that the players union didn't trust Selig at all because of some of his questionable practices leading up to the strike.

[NCCubFan]

It also didn't help that the players union didn't trust Selig at all because of some of his questionable practices leading up to the strike.

True, but I don't think the players would have accepted a cap anyway. Edited June 27, 2007 by NCCubFan

[jjgman21]

Suntimes[/url]"]One report from Florida said in the deal being discussed, the Cubs would have picked up all but the prorated minimum major-league salary this year and the 2008 minimum -- or all but about $600,000 of Jones' remaining salary obligation.

 

That would seem to be a sure deal-breaker, given the team's ownership uncertainty and difficulty in making financial obligations beyond this season. But Hendry said, ''What happened today really had nothing to do with his remaining contract.''

 

The commissioner's office, which was not happy with the Cubs' huge offseason spending, might have played a role. All cash exchanges exceeding $1 million must be approved by the commissioner.

 

Why in the world would the commissioner's office care what the Cubs are spending?

 

Is this a serious question?

 

The commish works for the owners. The owners, as a group, want to profit. Individually, the owners don't want anybody else spending money, because that drives up costs, and cuts into profit. Realistically, that's not going to happen. So, instead, they prefer to see teams spend logically, and not throw out crazy contracts that drives up the costs for everybody. In other words, they don't want to see guys handing out 3 year contracts with no-trade clauses to middle relievers, or 8 year 136 million deals for guys that aren't top of the line superstars. Owners got pissed at Hicks for the original ARod deal. Owners get pissed at Steinbrenner when he brings his payroll from $95m to $200m in just a couple of years. Owners get pissed when desperate GMs give insanely large contracts to mediocre pitchers, because that drives up costs for the rest of the pitchers.

 

Selig doesn't want to see teams throw money around willy-nilly like Hendry did this offseason. It drives up the costs for everybody else and makes his life difficult, by having to deal with other owners bitching and moaning.

 

I think it was a serious question, but you chose to remove the context and answer the question you wanted to answer.

 

off season spending is one thing (although George was never publicly chastised by Bud for the spike in payroll you describe), so your points regarding that are well taken. but I think the question posed is directly related to the issue at hand.

 

why Bud would be concerned, if he was concerned, about this particular deal is a head scratcher as the rule regarding sign off on transactions involving exchange of $1M or more is so low payroll teams can't sell players for large amounts of cash the way the KC A's used to sell all their good players to the Yankees. that is not the scenerio here.

 

Jones contract is signed. why Bud would give a damn that the Cubs are paying him to play for the Marlins is beyond me. he had no problem with Colorado and Florida paying Hampton to pitch for the Braves, nor does he have a problem with the Rangers paying Arod to play for the Yankees.

[Banedon]

is this one of those things where we are never going to know the true tale?

 

Uh, I think we pretty much know what happened. Hendry basically laid it out for us.

 

yes, they fleeced us with the Pierre deal and were attempting to do so again -- Jim wised up to their evil games this time

 

Jim should have a "Marlins rule" when it comes to taking phone calls from them. Unless the opening sentence of the conversation is "We'd like to see what we can do to unload Miguel Cabrera," Jim should hang up the phone.

[jersey cubs fan]

but you chose to remove the context and answer the question you wanted to answer..

 

I answered the question that was asked.

[jersey cubs fan]

why Bud would be concerned, if he was concerned, about this particular deal is a head scratcher as the rule regarding sign off on transactions involving exchange of $1M or more is so low payroll teams can't sell players for large amounts of cash the way the KC A's used to sell all their good players to the Yankees. that is not the scenerio here.

 

Jones contract is signed. why Bud would give a damn that the Cubs are paying him to play for the Marlins is beyond me. he had no problem with Colorado and Florida paying Hampton to pitch for the Braves, nor does he have a problem with the Rangers paying Arod to play for the Yankees.

 

Those deals involved teams spreading the cost of a large contract. This deal reportedly involves the Cubs picking up virtually all of the contract. Bud has, in recent years, gotten in the way of potential deals involving the Yankees and this situation.

 

But there's absolutely no evidence that he was in any way shape or form involved in nixing this deal.

[Amazing_Grace]

Jones trade talks fizzle

 

Doesn't sound like Zell had anything to do with it.

 

"It's unfortunate," Hendry said, referring to the fact Jones already had heard the rumors.

 

Hendry is unlikely to go back to the Marlins, who may want the Cubs to pay more of Jones salary than Hendry would like. The Cubs reportedly were willing to assume $6.6 million of the remaining $7.2 million on Jones' contract through 2008 when the deal collapsed.

 

"It wasn't really a good deal for us," Hendry said. "We got close in one scenario and talked to some other clubs [Monday], and I have another scenario. I just felt like I wasn't going to get rushed into it and make a deal that I didn't think was good for us, so it didn't get done."

 

So $6.6 million wasn't enough for the Marlins? Sheesh...$6.6 million was way too much to begin with Jim. Glad you finally woke up before Larry really stuck it to you.

 

Well, that's interesting. What is Hendry thinking at this point. He can't actually believe he'll get a decent player for Jones, can he? Hendry should basically say, I don't care what prospect I get. Whoever is willing to pay the most on Jones's contract will get him. Paying 6.6M of 7.2M is crap, regardless of who we get. If we were going to do that, we should have DFAed Jones a month ago. Hendry does need to move it along though. With Jones pouting like a 3 year old, we basically have a 24 man roster.

[BigbadB]

Those deals involved teams spreading the cost of a large contract. This deal reportedly involves the Cubs picking up virtually all of the contract. Bud has, in recent years, gotten in the way of potential deals involving the Yankees and this situation.

 

But there's absolutely no evidence that he was in any way shape or form involved in nixing this deal.

 

Agreed on the last part. The Yankees have moved many players and picked up most if not all of the contract. Javier Vasquez to Arizona is one that comes to mind.

[anabiono]

is this one of those things where we are never going to know the true tale?

 

Uh, I think we pretty much know what happened. Hendry basically laid it out for us.

 

mmm...there does seem to be a fair amount of widely differing conjecture flying around in the press and what have you...that is why i asked the question...usually if there are different tales to a story and there has been no clear explaination...you tend to question the originating motive

[jersey cubs fan]

Those deals involved teams spreading the cost of a large contract. This deal reportedly involves the Cubs picking up virtually all of the contract. Bud has, in recent years, gotten in the way of potential deals involving the Yankees and this situation.

 

But there's absolutely no evidence that he was in any way shape or form involved in nixing this deal.

 

Agreed on the last part. The Yankees have moved many players and picked up most if not all of the contract. Javier Vasquez to Arizona is one that comes to mind.

 

I can't remember the specific deal, but I know there has been at least one, in recent years, where the commish basically made them go back tot he drawing board. It was a big topic here for quite a while.

[anabiono]

Mike North just reported on the score at 9:10 AM that Sam Zell vetoed the deal in the zero hour that would have had the Chicago Cubs paying roughly 6 million dollars of Jones 7.2 million dollar deal.

 

this was taken from the insidetheivy forums

 

think of it what you will

[cubfan1955]

Mike North just reported on the score at 9:10 AM that Sam Zell vetoed the deal in the zero hour that would have had the Chicago Cubs paying roughly 6 million dollars of Jones 7.2 million dollar deal.

 

this was taken from the insidetheivy forums

 

think of it what you will

Good for him then if true (not convinced though from that source). He should be the GM instead of Hendry, whom obviously has no clue what he's doing.

[Twiggy]

Can the Cubs just get sold already please? enough of this ownership bs

[swordsman]

Might our resident media insider and all around good guy, Bruce Miles, be able to clear up the Zell involvement for us.

 

Someone fire up the Bruce signal.

[USSoccer]

Mike North just reported on the score at 9:10 AM that Sam Zell vetoed the deal in the zero hour that would have had the Chicago Cubs paying roughly 6 million dollars of Jones 7.2 million dollar deal.

 

this was taken from the insidetheivy forums

 

think of it what you will

 

I don't buy it. It makes no sense for someone making a multi-billion dollar deal to get pissy over $6m dollars.

[jersey cubs fan]

Mike North just reported on the score at 9:10 AM that Sam Zell vetoed the deal in the zero hour that would have had the Chicago Cubs paying roughly 6 million dollars of Jones 7.2 million dollar deal.

 

this was taken from the insidetheivy forums

 

think of it what you will

 

I don't buy it. It makes no sense for someone making a multi-billion dollar deal to get pissy over $6m dollars.

 

I don't buy that Mike North "just reported" the story. He's not a reporter. He's a hack opinion giver who will run with any storyline he can find to create controversy.