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.