Jacque Jones Deal to Marlins is Off Because of Hendry

[Cubfanintheknow]

So does that mean the Cubs would not be allowed to DFA Jones? It would basically be the same thing as trading him, minus the Cubs getting some fringe prospect in return. Because no doubt Jones would be picked up after the ten day layoff and the CUbs still would have to pay him.

[soccer10k]

I listened a bit of Bruce Levine on the Talkin Baseball show yesterday and George Offerman on whatever Score show is on Sundays mid-morning. Both thought that Hendry's hands were more or less tied when it came to making any trades because of the pending sale. Apparently there are now multiple levels of approval needed and any trade can be easily vetoed.

 

Both also opined that Z is likely going nowhere, then walking at the end of the season.

 

I'm guessing this offseason is going to be a disaster. :cry:

 

I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

[NCCubFan]

I listened a bit of Bruce Levine on the Talkin Baseball show yesterday and George Offerman on whatever Score show is on Sundays mid-morning. Both thought that Hendry's hands were more or less tied when it came to making any trades because of the pending sale. Apparently there are now multiple levels of approval needed and any trade can be easily vetoed.

 

Both also opined that Z is likely going nowhere, then walking at the end of the season.

 

I'm guessing this offseason is going to be a disaster. :cry:

 

I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

I'll be willing to take it if they win this year. Otherwise, no; they have an obligation to their long loyal fans to somehow find a way to keep things moving, sale or no sale. They can't expect their fans to tolerate more inaction and rebuilding just because they choose to sell the team.

[Soriano12]

So does that mean the Cubs would not be allowed to DFA Jones? It would basically be the same thing as trading him, minus the Cubs getting some fringe prospect in return. Because no doubt Jones would be picked up after the ten day layoff and the CUbs still would have to pay him.

 

Good question..I was wondering that as well.

[Jazz]

this is so incredibly lame of the MLB if true.

 

We better hope Z REALLY loves the cubs (as it seems he does) and is patient with us to allow the sale to go through so we can sign him.

[nilodnayr]

I have no problem with MLB blocking the deal, if that is indeed what happened.

 

With the Cubs picking up so much salary, it is basically the equivalent of purchasing prospects from a team with less financial resources. A practice that is not in the best interest of baseball.

 

It looks like the only likely trading partner is a team burdened with another player who is overpaid and underperforming.

 

And I would argue that FLA is a team that realizes it will not be able to hold onto both of its best players for much longer and sees Jones as the extra piece that might get them over the hump to the playoffs for this year. I'd be pissed if I were them too.

[Guest]

And here I thought all the Cubs woes would be solved if they finally were rid of the Trib as an owner...

[soccer10k]

I listened a bit of Bruce Levine on the Talkin Baseball show yesterday and George Offerman on whatever Score show is on Sundays mid-morning. Both thought that Hendry's hands were more or less tied when it came to making any trades because of the pending sale. Apparently there are now multiple levels of approval needed and any trade can be easily vetoed.

 

Both also opined that Z is likely going nowhere, then walking at the end of the season.

 

I'm guessing this offseason is going to be a disaster. :cry:

 

I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

I'll be willing to take it if they win this year. Otherwise, no; they have an obligation to their long loyal fans to somehow find a way to keep things moving, sale or no sale. They can't expect their fans to tolerate more inaction and rebuilding just because they choose to sell the team.

 

If they win the World Series this year, they could do just about anything and I wouldn't care because the Cubs would have just won the World Series.

 

EDITED: See below.

Edited July 3, 2007 by soccer10k

[Laura]

And here I thought all the Cubs woes would be solved if they finally were rid of the Trib as an owner...

 

Seeing as the Trib hasn't been able to field a .500 team over the past 25ish years, I'm still willing to take my chances with a change in ownership (which hasn't happened yet).

[RynoRules]

And here I thought all the Cubs woes would be solved if they finally were rid of the Trib as an owner...

 

Seeing as the Trib hasn't been able to field a .500 team over the past 25ish years, I'm still willing to take my chances with a change in ownership (which hasn't happened yet).

 

Being in ownership-limbo appears to be more of a barrier to winning than having The Trib ownership is/was.

[Laura]

Right now it is. Long term, I've had no confidence that the Trib would be able to reverse course and consistently field a winning team. The reasons for that have evolved over time, but the record speaks for itself. There's no guarantee the next owner will be better, but I'd prefer to take that risk than watch a consistently sub-.500 team, which has been the history under Trib ownership, for the next 25 years.

 

Your mileage may differ. :)

[NCCubFan]

If they win the World Series this year, they could do just about anything and I would care because the Cubs would have just won the World Series.

I'm guessing you meant you wouldn't care, and if so that's exactly my point too. If they win it this year all past suckage will be forgiven and they will have bought time to do any rebuilding needed under a new owner.

[CubinNY]

NY Daily News[/url]"]According to various baseball sources, it was Bud Selig who kiboshed that trade of Jacque Jones from the Cubs to the Marlins last week - and not a matter of the Cubs simply having second thoughts. Seems Selig deemed the money the Cubs were to absorb on Jones' contract as excessive. Apparently, the pending sale of the Cubs has prompted a "no more debt" edict from Selig, which may explain why there have been no further contract talks with free agent-to-be Carlos Zambrano. The fact that John Canning Jr., the billionaire CEO of Madison Dearborn Properties and a close friend of Selig's (with an 11% stake in the Brewers) has emerged as the potential frontrunner in the Cubs' ownership sweepstakes may also explain why the commissioner doesn't want any more onerous contracts at Wrigley in the aftermath of the Tribune Co.'s wild spending spree last winter.

 

Wow, if that's true, just wow. It's not like the Cubs are taking on 10M extra dollars of contract. They're paying Jones to play for another team. They pay his salary either way. What has debt got to do with anything? Not to mention Selig has no right to interfere in the finances of major league teams. The league has to approve all trades, but I don't recall a trade ever being vetoed because of some aspect of the team's internal finances.

This is why baseball is so messed up. The owners keep trying to kill the game, but the game is too strong for them.

 

Dumbest bunch of smart people on the planet.

[Backtobanks]

NY Daily News[/url]"]According to various baseball sources, it was Bud Selig who kiboshed that trade of Jacque Jones from the Cubs to the Marlins last week - and not a matter of the Cubs simply having second thoughts. Seems Selig deemed the money the Cubs were to absorb on Jones' contract as excessive. Apparently, the pending sale of the Cubs has prompted a "no more debt" edict from Selig, which may explain why there have been no further contract talks with free agent-to-be Carlos Zambrano. The fact that John Canning Jr., the billionaire CEO of Madison Dearborn Properties and a close friend of Selig's (with an 11% stake in the Brewers) has emerged as the potential frontrunner in the Cubs' ownership sweepstakes may also explain why the commissioner doesn't want any more onerous contracts at Wrigley in the aftermath of the Tribune Co.'s wild spending spree last winter.

 

Selig comes out of this smelling like a rose. First, he's protecting his close friend's money. Second, he's made the other owners happy by sticking it to the Cubs because of their spending spree during the off season. Finally, he's doing his best to guarantee "his" franchise wins the NL Central. Doesn't his daughter own stock in the Brewers?

[UBlink]

I have no problem with MLB blocking the deal, if that is indeed what happened.

 

With the Cubs picking up so much salary, it is basically the equivalent of purchasing prospects from a team with less financial resources. A practice that is not in the best interest of baseball.

 

It looks like the only likely trading partner is a team burdened with another player who is overpaid and underperforming.

 

It's not the equivalent of purchasing prospects because every penny the Cubs were paying the Marlins would have to go to Jones. Not a cent would go to the team with less financial resources. It's a recognition that the market values the services of Jacque Jones at the league minimum. If Jones couldn't perform at least up to the standard of a league minimum player (plus the value of the prospect) this would be a bad deal for Florida - they could get better performance by paying league minimum to a league minimum player instead.

[NCCubFan]

Doesn't his daughter own stock in the Brewers?

She did; I don't know if she still does. In fact, I believe she was in control of the team when Bud gave it up to become commish.

[soccer10k]

If they win the World Series this year, they could do just about anything and I would care because the Cubs would have just won the World Series.

I'm guessing you meant you wouldn't care, and if so that's exactly my point too. If they win it this year all past suckage will be forgiven and they will have bought time to do any rebuilding needed under a new owner.

 

Yeah, I meant wouldn't. Thanks for the correction.

[Iceblink]

Selig is the George W Bush of baseball.

 

Well, I guess W was the W of baseball first.

 

I stand by my assessment that Selig is in dire need of a kick in the nuts.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

[JeffH]

That is an excellent question.

[jersey cubs fan]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

 

I doubt it. (and by it, I'm referring to the last question, can Selig stop them from cutting Jones)

 

Trades involving the movement of more than $1m, regardless of whether it's about "buying a player" or one team paying another team to take a guy off their hands", have to get commish approval.

 

So that's why he could stop them from making the trade (if he even did). But he doesn't have the authority to stop them from releasing Jones. He could go to the owners and tell them he advises against it. Or a potential buyer could say he'll take whatever dead weight cost off his offer, but if they want to cut him, they can.

Edited July 3, 2007 by jersey cubs fan

[Backtobanks]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

 

Which again begs the question, "How is that incurring more debt for the new owner when we have to pay him if we keep him?"

[Banedon]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

 

Jones is a sunk cost. That money is going to have to be paid to him whether he's released or whether he stays.

[JeffH]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

 

Which again begs the question, "How is that incurring more debt for the new owner when we have to pay him if we keep him?"

 

Evidently, if they trade him and pay his salary (or, ostensibly, DhimFA), all the money due him must be taken up immediately for accounting purposes.

 

Something to do with having a liability (Jones salary), but no corresponding asset (Jones' services - no jokes, please).

[jersey cubs fan]

Which again begs the question, "Will the Cubs be allowed to DFA Jones?" The proposed trade to the Marlins was as close to DFA-ing Jones as it gets. Would Selig prevent the Cubs from cutting Jones to keep "incurring more debt for the new owner?" Can he?

 

Which again begs the question, "How is that incurring more debt for the new owner when we have to pay him if we keep him?"

 

It's debt in a baseball sense, paying a guy who is not on the team. When baseball hurts teams that try to do that, it makes them think twice about handing out stupid contracts, in theory. Enforcing this debt concept is not new.

 

MLB has a rule in place where teams can't carry debt in excess of 40% of their value. For their purposes, the value of the team is based on something like twice the previous year's revenue, and the debt includes any money owed to players in future years. It's a tool MLB uses to screw with teams that are giving out stupid contracts, like the Cubs. Everybody knows the Cubs gave out $300m in contracts this year, of which about $250m is owed in future years. There was already another $50m or so on the books owed to guys in the future. That $300m is 40% of $750 million, which is greater than the Cubs value, as it's been stated in many official records ($600-650m I believe). So, the Cubs giving out deals willy-nilly gave the commish power to mess with future moves. Just another reason why the Jones, Eyre, Rusch, Blanco, Howry and others deals were so harmful, and why the Lilly, Marquis and Soriano deals hurt as well. And unless I'm mistaken, I believe potential money owed, as in the case of incentives like the ones in Floyd's contract (up to $17m?) also count in this process.