Tribune: Wood Signs Deal with Cleveland (p. 29)

[Backtobanks]

How can Hendry be up against a 100% firm budget when he's flirting with names like Peavy, Abreu, and Ibanez all of which will command more money than Wood will get in arbitration.

 

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem.

 

No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation.

[jersey cubs fan]

How can Hendry be up against a 100% firm budget when he's flirting with names like Peavy, Abreu, and Ibanez all of which will command more money than Wood will get in arbitration.

 

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem.

 

No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation.

 

A) You can't just decide to trade Marquis. Odds are you'll have to pick up a huge chunk of his salary.

 

B) If he's got, let's say, $12-14m left, he can look at any of those guys. But if Wood accepts he can't.

 

 

I really don't understand why you are having trouble understanding the limitations of a budget.

[Backtobanks]

How can Hendry be up against a 100% firm budget when he's flirting with names like Peavy, Abreu, and Ibanez all of which will command more money than Wood will get in arbitration.

 

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem.

 

No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation.

 

A) You can't just decide to trade Marquis. Odds are you'll have to pick up a huge chunk of his salary.

 

B) If he's got, let's say, $12-14m left, he can look at any of those guys. But if Wood accepts he can't.

 

 

I really don't understand why you are having trouble understanding the limitations of a budget.

 

I understand the limitations of a budget, but if he has $12-$14 million left (your example), he can't afford any of those guys with raises due to certain players. Also, with how much he has spent since the team has been for sale, I have trouble believing that any bigshot is going to shoot down a chance to get Peavy and re-sign Wood because it will go a few million over budget.

[davearm2]

How can Hendry be up against a 100% firm budget when he's flirting with names like Peavy, Abreu, and Ibanez all of which will command more money than Wood will get in arbitration.

 

If Wood accepts and brings him much closer to that budget, he couldn't afford any of those players, which would be the problem.

 

No necessarily, it just means he might have to trade Marquis to pay for Wood's contract. If he does have a firm budget, I still can't see how they're looking at Peavy, Abreu, or Ibanez regardless of Wood's situation.

Jim Hendry's priority list:

1) trade for Peavy

2) sign Ibanez/Abreu

3) retain Wood

 

1) and 2) could be flip-flopped, but 3) is clearly behind the other two.

 

Since Hendry's got the budget to pursue one, and only one of the above options, it should be easy to see the problem with offering Wood arbitration -- if he accepts, he's immediately blocked from making either of the other, more impactful moves.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If Hendry let Wood go partially because he didn't want to insult Kerry with a short term deal, I'd imagine he thinks the odds of Kerry needing to accept arbitration are pretty low.

[jersey cubs fan]

If Hendry let Wood go partially because he didn't want to insult Kerry with a short term deal, I'd imagine he thinks the odds of Kerry needing to accept arbitration are pretty low.

 

If Hendry let Wood go in order to avoid insulting him, he's a bigger idiot than anybody every claimed he was.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If Hendry let Wood go partially because he didn't want to insult Kerry with a short term deal, I'd imagine he thinks the odds of Kerry needing to accept arbitration are pretty low.

 

If Hendry let Wood go in order to avoid insulting him, he's a bigger idiot than anybody every claimed he was.

 

Come on, don't nitpick the choice of words. Hendry knows/thinks Wood was going to get a long term deal, and since they weren't going to give him a long term deal, they aren't pursuing him, a fan favorite coming off a great year. With that level of certainty in Hendry's mind, I find it hard to believe he avoids offering arbitration on the chance Wood needs to come back to the Cubs for a one year deal breaking a hypothetical budget he's under.

[wrigley23]

they have also talked about a priority of being "more athletic" which means position players/hitters. Furcal, Roberts, etc. come to mind. Resigning Wood is a very low priority. Beyond that, he wants a 4-yr contract which isn't going to happen w/ the Cub...nor should it.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

If Hendry let Wood go partially because he didn't want to insult Kerry with a short term deal, I'd imagine he thinks the odds of Kerry needing to accept arbitration are pretty low.

 

If Hendry let Wood go in order to avoid insulting him, he's a bigger idiot than anybody every claimed he was.

 

 

when he announced after the Gregg trade that Wood isn't going to return, Hendry plainly stated

that his reasoning is based on the idea that Wood has an ethical obligation to sign a higher-salary

deal, since, in Hendry's opinion, that would be the best thing for Wood and his family. he made

it sound like he wanted to do what he could to limit Wood's 'temptation' to return to the Cubs.

 

 

edit: 'temptation' is my word, not Hendry's

[jersey cubs fan]

If Hendry let Wood go partially because he didn't want to insult Kerry with a short term deal, I'd imagine he thinks the odds of Kerry needing to accept arbitration are pretty low.

 

If Hendry let Wood go in order to avoid insulting him, he's a bigger idiot than anybody every claimed he was.

 

Come on, don't nitpick the choice of words. Hendry knows/thinks Wood was going to get a long term deal, and since they weren't going to give him a long term deal, they aren't pursuing him, a fan favorite coming off a great year. With that level of certainty in Hendry's mind, I find it hard to believe he avoids offering arbitration on the chance Wood needs to come back to the Cubs for a one year deal breaking a hypothetical budget he's under.

 

I don't see how that is nitpicking.

[SouthSideRyan]

Beyond that, he wants a 4-yr contract which isn't going to happen w/ the Cub...nor should it.

 

You don't understand arbitration do you?

[davearm2]

Come on, don't nitpick the choice of words. Hendry knows/thinks Wood was going to get a long term deal, and since they weren't going to give him a long term deal, they aren't pursuing him, a fan favorite coming off a great year. With that level of certainty in Hendry's mind, I find it hard to believe he avoids offering arbitration on the chance Wood needs to come back to the Cubs for a one year deal breaking a hypothetical budget he's under.

"Hypothetical" budget? Seems pretty real to me.

[FergieJ31]

...in Hendry's opinion, that would be the best thing for Wood and his family. He made

it sound like he wanted to do what he could to limit Wood's 'temptation' to return to the Cubs.

 

edit: 'temptation' is my word, not Hendry's

 

This is what I've felt all along too, and I can't help but wonder if 'limiting temptation' is as far as it goes.

 

Budget issues aside (and I certainly agree budget concerns are valid) there was an odd finality in Hendry's tone after the exclusive negotiation period had ended. The announcement was made that Wood would not be returning, but then Kerry surprised everyone by saying he would have accepted a one-year deal.

 

Now if the Cubs offer arbitration and Wood accepts, they still would have til Feb to work out a deal, before the arbitration hearings. That is more than enough time for both sides to hammer out a mutually agreeable deal, making Hendry's annoucement way too premature.

 

Because I'm clueless on stuff like this, can anyone explain the legalities of Hendry privately asking Wood to not accept arb if it were offered, so the Cubs can get the compensatory picks?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Come on, don't nitpick the choice of words. Hendry knows/thinks Wood was going to get a long term deal, and since they weren't going to give him a long term deal, they aren't pursuing him, a fan favorite coming off a great year. With that level of certainty in Hendry's mind, I find it hard to believe he avoids offering arbitration on the chance Wood needs to come back to the Cubs for a one year deal breaking a hypothetical budget he's under.

"Hypothetical" budget? Seems pretty real to me.

 

Hypothetical in the sense that we don't know exactly where it is. There have been scenarios thrown about like "if Hendry has X million dollars to spend", and we don't know if it's at X or lower or higher.

[NCCubFan]

Because I'm clueless on stuff like this, can anyone explain the legalities of Hendry privately asking Wood to not accept arb if it were offered, so the Cubs can get the compensatory picks?

I don't think there are any legal issues. I'm fairly certain Hendry could ask Wood for that. Wood, in turn, could agree or not.

[SCCubbieFAN]

But giving a "hometown discount" to stay with your current club or restructuring your contract is quite different from a player accepting a 1 yr deal for 8 mil over a 3 yr deal for 7-8 mil a year. When a player restructures his contract he typically gets the same amount of $$ or more in exchange for it being paid over a longer period of time. Hometown discounts don't typically equate to several million dollars being left on the table as has been suggested in this thread.

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument.

 

Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that?

[CubColtPacer]

But giving a "hometown discount" to stay with your current club or restructuring your contract is quite different from a player accepting a 1 yr deal for 8 mil over a 3 yr deal for 7-8 mil a year. When a player restructures his contract he typically gets the same amount of $$ or more in exchange for it being paid over a longer period of time. Hometown discounts don't typically equate to several million dollars being left on the table as has been suggested in this thread.

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument.

 

Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that?

 

Randy Wolf signed a 1 year, 8 million dollar deal with the Dodgers a couple of years back (with a team option for a 2nd year) when there were multiple teams offering him 3/22-24 in that crazy starting pitching offseason. There are others, but they are decently rare.

[SCCubbieFAN]

But giving a "hometown discount" to stay with your current club or restructuring your contract is quite different from a player accepting a 1 yr deal for 8 mil over a 3 yr deal for 7-8 mil a year. When a player restructures his contract he typically gets the same amount of $$ or more in exchange for it being paid over a longer period of time. Hometown discounts don't typically equate to several million dollars being left on the table as has been suggested in this thread.

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument.

 

Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that?

 

Randy Wolf signed a 1 year, 8 million dollar deal with the Dodgers a couple of years back (with a team option for a 2nd year) when there were multiple teams offering him 3/22-24 in that crazy starting pitching offseason. There are others, but they are decently rare.

 

good example. thanks.

[mdwilla]

But giving a "hometown discount" to stay with your current club or restructuring your contract is quite different from a player accepting a 1 yr deal for 8 mil over a 3 yr deal for 7-8 mil a year. When a player restructures his contract he typically gets the same amount of $$ or more in exchange for it being paid over a longer period of time. Hometown discounts don't typically equate to several million dollars being left on the table as has been suggested in this thread.

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument.

 

Jer: I recall posts in other NSBB threads over the years suggesting that the players asso/union has some level of influence when it comes to contracts, the argument being that it is not good for ALL players for one to accept a deal that is substantially lower than another being offered. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm only saying I've never heard of a player accepting a one year deal for $8 mil over a deal for 3-4 years at $6, 7, or $8 mil per year as has been suggested in this thread. Can you provide an example of a player that did something like that?

 

Best example that comes to mind is Kerry Wood last offseason. The Red Sox offered him a mutli year deal with the intent on making him there closer.

 

Randy Wolf signed a 1 year, 8 million dollar deal with the Dodgers a couple of years back (with a team option for a 2nd year) when there were multiple teams offering him 3/22-24 in that crazy starting pitching offseason. There are others, but they are decently rare.

 

good example. thanks.

[Clem Fandango]

Rosenthal has a piece on arbitration and Wood was a focus in it...

 

Link

 

Kerry Wood

The Cubs aren't keen on keeping Kerry Wood.

 

The Cubs traded for reliever Kevin Gregg because they were unwilling to sign Wood long-term, believing he would land a lucrative contract as a free agent. But now the trade and free-agent markets are flooded with closers, and Wood is not certain to receive such a deal.

 

The Cubs want Carlos Marmol to close. They do not want Wood back, even for one year, at a salary of $9 million to $10 million. Their greater priorities are finding a left-handed hitting outfielder and another starting pitcher, either through a trade for Padres righty Jake Peavy or the signing of a free agent such as Johnson.

 

Wood said after the Cubs announced his departure that he would have returned on a one-year deal, even though his agents never raised that possibility, according to a major-league source. If he accepted arbitration, the Cubs could try to trade him to a team such as the Rangers, who might embrace Wood on a one-year commitment.

 

Contracts secured through arbitration are not guaranteed, so the Cubs also could release Wood in spring training and pay only a fraction of his salary. But, to avoid a grievance by the players union, they would need to demonstrate that every one of their other relievers was superior to Wood. Not likely.

[Schwarber Fan]

CHICAGO -- The Cubs were expected to offer free agent Kerry Wood arbitration on Monday, but they may not do so for their other free agents such as Jim Edmonds, Daryle Ward and Bob Howry.

 

Teams must decide by 10:59 p.m. CT on Monday whether to offer arbitration to their six-year free agents. By doing so, a team will guarantee itself two Draft picks for any Type A free agent it loses, and one Draft pick (sandwich pick) for a Type B free agent. The club cannot get compensation for any free agent it loses if it does not offer arbitration.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081126&content_id=3694386&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

[17 Seconds]

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

[SouthSideRyan]

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

 

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from?

 

The excerpt shows nothing like that.

[17 Seconds]

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

 

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from?

 

The excerpt shows nothing like that.

 

Wood said after the Cubs announced his departure that he would have returned on a one-year deal, even though his agents never raised that possibility, according to a major-league source.

 

I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal"

[SouthSideRyan]

Sounds like Wood was full of isht when he said he'd accept a one year deal.

 

I didn't read the article, but where are you getting that from?

 

The excerpt shows nothing like that.

 

Wood said after the Cubs announced his departure that he would have returned on a one-year deal, even though his agents never raised that possibility, according to a major-league source.

 

I've seen similar things in other articles as well. I also saw a quote from Wood where he was like "I would have considered a one year deal" instead of "I would have accepted a one year deal"

 

I'm not following how he's full of it because his agent never raised the possibility. His agent's job was to get him the maximum contract possible. It would have been stupid for him to offer a 1 year possibility before he could even shop Kerry around to check out the market for him.