Jacque Jones Deal to Marlins is Off Because of Hendry

[UBlink]

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).

 

From an accounting standpoint the fact that no one is willing to take Jones unless the Cubs pick up most of his remaining contract means that the asset is impaired and they need to take a charge in the current period (with corresponding liability) whether they trade him or not.

[Banedon]

From Chicagosports.com:

 

Major League sources on Tuesday denied a New York Daily News report that Commissioner Bud Selig was the one who nixed the Jones-to-Florida trade, which means the Cubs are to blame for refusing to pay the bulk of the remaining $7 million on his contract.

[weis21]

From Chicagosports.com:

 

Major League sources on Tuesday denied a New York Daily News report that Commissioner Bud Selig was the one who nixed the Jones-to-Florida trade, which means the Cubs are to blame for refusing to pay the bulk of the remaining $7 million on his contract.

 

Thanks. After hearing Bruce say that it was Hendry who pulled the plug, the NY story made no sense. I'm glad that is cleared up, which brings me to the next question, can we or can we not take on more salary???

 

ps- I'm sick and tired of these national writers making assumptions and then throwing them out there as fact. If you don't know for sure, then keep your mouth shut!

[weis21]

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I really do think if we wait just a little longer we will find somebody willing to pay at least half of jone's salary. It isn't an enormous amount and some owners are stupid and desperate enough to "shake" things up around the deadline. If someone pays all of neifi's contract, then there's somebody out there for jones after all.

[Bruce Miles]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

[JWCUB]

Bruce,

 

Do you think the Cubs will make a major move at the deadline if the club is still in contention? Considering the "restictions" they are under due to the sale. If in fact that is even true.

[CUBZ99]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

So who is telling the truth? It doesn't make any sense that the Trib Tower would veto a trade of Jones based on salary. (For the reason Bruce stated). It also doesn' t make any sense that MLB offices would come out any deny having any involvement in stopping the trade, if they truly vetoed the trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

So who is telling the truth? It doesn't make any sense that the Trib Tower would veto a trade of Jones based on salary. (For the reason Bruce stated). It also doesn' t make any sense that MLB offices would come out any deny having any involvement in stopping the trade, if they truly vetoed the trade.

 

How about Hendry?

[CUBZ99]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

So who is telling the truth? It doesn't make any sense that the Trib Tower would veto a trade of Jones based on salary. (For the reason Bruce stated). It also doesn' t make any sense that MLB offices would come out any deny having any involvement in stopping the trade, if they truly vetoed the trade.

 

How about Hendry?

 

I suppose that could be true, but wouldn't he have had to make the deal with Florida (which leaked to the press) and then at the last minute decide it wasn't a good deal and pull it off the table?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

And yet Sullivan, who should know better, runs with the NY Daily News rumor...link.

[killthegoat06]

And yet Sullivan, who should know better, runs with the NY Daily News rumor...link.

 

They're all idiots.

[jersey cubs fan]

I suppose that could be true, but wouldn't he have had to make the deal with Florida (which leaked to the press) and then at the last minute decide it wasn't a good deal and pull it off the table?

 

Not really.

 

Just because it leaks, and from all accounts, the first source of those leaks were on this message board, doesn't mean it was ever finished.

 

He could have agreed to players and then negotiated the money before backing out. He could have agreed to the money but been trying to upgrade the prospect in return. Or maybe it never got that close.

 

Trades are regularly reported as "all but done" without ever being finalized. Lots and lots of trades have been leaked and then fall apart.

[CubColtPacer]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

So who is telling the truth? It doesn't make any sense that the Trib Tower would veto a trade of Jones based on salary. (For the reason Bruce stated). It also doesn' t make any sense that MLB offices would come out any deny having any involvement in stopping the trade, if they truly vetoed the trade.

 

How about Hendry?

 

I suppose that could be true, but wouldn't he have had to make the deal with Florida (which leaked to the press) and then at the last minute decide it wasn't a good deal and pull it off the table?

 

The precise money amount was probably done last. Hendry found out their interest and offered to pay some of the contract. Then they agreed on the prospect. Finally, Florida came with their demand of exactly how much money they wanted, and Hendry thought about it and then demanded less money or a better prospect. While this was going on, Florida people leak the story that the deal is done (almost all of the reports came from a Florida source). When the Marlins don't budge on the money or the prospect, Hendry shuts down the negotiations.

[davearm]

The precise money amount was probably done last. Hendry found out their interest and offered to pay some of the contract. Then they agreed on the prospect. Finally, Florida came with their demand of exactly how much money they wanted, and Hendry thought about it and then demanded less money or a better prospect. While this was going on, Florida people leak the story that the deal is done (almost all of the reports came from a Florida source). When the Marlins don't budge on the money or the prospect, Hendry shuts down the negotiations.

That strikes me as the most plausible explanation, by far.

[Alfonso Soriano]

Has anyone posted this yet?

"WASHINGTON D.C. -- The New York Daily News, citing unidentified sources, reported that Commissioner Bud Selig nixed the Jacque Jones-to-Florida deal because he did not want the next owner of the Cubs to incur any more debt."

 

How is this NOT a conflict of interest? Bud Selig owns the Brewers in trust. The Cubs are chasing the Brewers in the division. The Cubs want to dump Jones and add a 12th pitcher. Selig denies this, even though the owner has no problem taking on the debt.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

[E.J.]

Has anyone posted this yet?

"WASHINGTON D.C. -- The New York Daily News, citing unidentified sources, reported that Commissioner Bud Selig nixed the Jacque Jones-to-Florida deal because he did not want the next owner of the Cubs to incur any more debt."

 

How is this NOT a conflict of interest? Bud Selig owns the Brewers in trust. The Cubs are chasing the Brewers in the division. The Cubs want to dump Jones and add a 12th pitcher. Selig denies this, even though the owner has no problem taking on the debt.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

 

I'm guessing you don't actually read. :lol:

[Exile on Waveland]

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?"

 

Actually, neither begs the question. OK, "Go away grammar/syntax police."

[weis21]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

That's the thing Bruce. I felt like I was the idiot because I thought the same thing. But they kept on preaching it as if it was the gospel. I mean seriously I get that your a so-called "baseball expert" on ESPN, but at least make common sense in your predictions. For God's sake if you are making assumptions then say, "in your best estimate" or "you have been lead to believe"...don't pass these fabrications along without merit!

[abuck1220]

understatement of the century...

 

Harris, a pinch-hitting specialist in 2003, was released midway through the season and eventually signed with Florida, where he earned a World Series ring.

 

Jones was nearly traded to Florida last week, but the deal fell through at the last minute when the Cubs decided not to pay the Marlins $6.6 million of the remaining $7.2 million on his contract. Sources said Tuesday that Commissioner Bud Selig did approve the trade of Jones to Florida, refuting a New York Daily News report that blamed Selig for the snag.

 

Harris now hopes Jones will find a new home soon and put Chicago in the rearview mirror.

"Me, Jacque and Soriano are all different kinds of players," he said. "Jacque is an everyday player, and he played his way out of [his slump] last season, and he had the time to do it. Sometimes you don't get an opportunity to play your way out of it and you get into bad habits. Your mind ain't set right.

 

really? because when i looked up soriano at baseball reference, i coulda swore lenny was one of his comparables.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Dude, Lenny Harris saved us in 2003, dude. He comes to play, a real veteran asset. Dude.

[soccer10k]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

Somebody brought this up in another thread (and I have no idea which one) but under the proposed deal the Cubs would be paying all but the league minimum (or around that figure) while the Marlins would have picked up the rest. But the Cubs would still have to pay another player to take Jones' position on the roster. So essentially the player replacing Jones would have to make the league minimum for the Cubs to not take on any more salary than they would already have by keeping Jones.

[CubFanPhilly]

If Hendry DFA's Jones and another team picks him up at league minimum, the Cubs are on the hook for the same $6.6 mil. as they were in the rumored deal.

 

So, the benefits of the trade were: 1) a A ptiching prospect of dubious value; 2) a guarantee that someone else pays at least $.6 mil. of Jones' remaining contract; 3) the value of Jones' replacement vs. the value of having Jones on the bench; and 4) the value of removing another distraction.

 

Jones can be DFA'd at any time, and it's likely that someone would pick him up at league minimum. That negates most of the benefits of the trade. So, I think it boils down to whether Hendry believed a better deal would come along soon (i.e., a better prospect in return or having the Cubs send back less money into the deal).

 

I want to see Jones, Eyre and Izturis moved soon and Murton, Cedeno, and one of the young pitchers called up to replace them. But I can't blame Hendry for passing on a deal that was not significantly better than a DFA. On the other hand, I will blame him if he holds out too long.

[CubFanPhilly]

And the notion that Zell, the league, or Tribune's managment would nix a deal because of the pending sale doesn't hold much weight with me.

 

After 2007 the Cubs are committed to pay $180 mil. in contracts over seven years. The Tribune sale $8 bil. and the potential value of the Cubs ~$.75 bil. to $1 bil. make a $6.6 mil. decision trivial.

 

Strong attendance, good TV ratings, and the value of a playoff appearance in 2007 would do far more to enhance the value of the Cubs than the difference in paying Jones to play for someone else (a decision that doesn't commit the Cubs to paying anymore salary than they were already commited to as Bruce and many others already pointed out).

 

CFP

[brinoch]

Bruce has a nice article up on the nixed trade and other sundry Cub happenings this morning. Here's a blurb:

 

WASHINGTON — Cubs general manager Jim Hendry went on the record Tuesday to deny national reports that baseball Commissioner Bud Selig nixed last week’s trade of Cubs outfielder Jacque Jones to the Florida Marlins.

 

“Major League Baseball had nothing to do with it,” Hendry said by telephone from Chicago.

 

A report over the weekend in the New York Daily News said Selig disallowed the trade of Jones because Selig felt the Cubs paying approximately $6.6 million of the remaining $7.1 million left on Jones’ contract through next year was too much.

[weis21]

Here's the thing: Some of these national writers failed math class. If the Cubs keep Jones, they have to pay him through next year anyway. If they pay part of his gig for him to go away, it amounts to the same thing, not "additional debt."

 

Somebody brought this up in another thread (and I have no idea which one) but under the proposed deal the Cubs would be paying all but the league minimum (or around that figure) while the Marlins would have picked up the rest. But the Cubs would still have to pay another player to take Jones' position on the roster. So essentially the player replacing Jones would have to make the league minimum for the Cubs to not take on any more salary than they would already have by keeping Jones.

 

The player the cubs would most likely add when they remove jacque will most likely make the minimum.