Edwin Jackson DFA

[TC in Mississippi]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/cubs-designate-edwin-jackson-activate-rafael-soriano.html

 

[Shawon0Meter]

It was so obviously a bad contract from the beginning and yet still turned out worse than expected. smh

 

[chibears55]

Knew theyd bounce his ass, just figured they do it after the deadline. .

Bullpen just got stronger...

 

[Parade_Rain]

Buh bye.

 

[TL1961]

The only thing worse than having to pay him in 2015 and 2016 is to keep him on the team simply because you're paying him.

Taking the hit now was the right move. Who was it that just this morning said this same thing - and said get rid of him? Was it Beckdawg?

Sunk cost was right. The money is gone either way. No reason to keep a better man off the roster.

Happy days!!

 

[CSF77]

called it

 

[greg23]

Im no jackson supporter...but....

Clayton richard is still on the team and in the starting rotation.....call me crazy but id prefer jackson over him (plus doesnt richard have ml options as he was in pitt ml when we traded for him last month.

 

[TL1961]

Im no jackson supporter...but....

Clayton richard is still on the team and in the starting rotation.....call me crazy but id prefer jackson over him (plus doesnt richard have ml options as he was in pitt ml when we traded for him last month.

Sadly, I had the same thought last night talking to a friend. I was celebrating Jackson's departure, while questioning whether he was a better option at #5. (I actually think our best #5 option right now is Travis Wood. But I certainly hope that changes at the deadline.)

 

[TL1961]

For as much as I celebrated Jackson being DFA'd, I will tip my hat to him in that his teammates truly liked him.

Grimm tweeted out some nice thoughts, and Arrieta in a post game interview called him "one of the finest human beings I have ever been around".

But it's "strictly business, Sonny, not personal"

 

[brett05]

It's about time!

 

[beckdawg]

Surprised they were willing to eat $15 mil+. I figured they'd try to do a bad contract for bad contract trade to get something more useful after the wavier deadline especially considering he'd been pretty good this year(3.19/2.83 ERA/FIP). With that being said, it did need to happen because between him and Wood they had 2 long relievers.

Wonder if they had offset language in his contract where if he signs with someone else they only have to pay the difference.

 

[CSF77]

The thing is they can pay it off now vs fix into next years budget.

It opens up more payroll.

On Wood: has to be on point with his location. His problem is he is a cutter pitcher. That pitch takes mph away from his fast ball. This is a issue Kershaw is having. Depending on the pitch too much vs sticking with his fastball/curve.

Wood lacks a strong breaking pitch. That is a major problem for him so he has to depend on pin point control of his cutter.

That has only happen 1 year.

He is excelling in the pen and that is where he should be at.


The Cubs do need a long term LH starter in the back end of the rotation. But I would look at guys that have established curveballs with low 90's stuff. Having a cutter adds to this.

Even Arrieta lowered the over use of his cutter this year. Went with his curve more. Over use drops mph. Just the way it is.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I didn't think the Jackson deal was horrible when they made it. The deal was slightly above average money for an innings eater with his stats at the time. They thought they were getting a guy who could provide a stabilizing force on the pitching staff to creat a bridge to contention and then could be a decent 5th starter. The thinking was sound. The thing is he was never the same pitcher after after he got to the Cubs and it just didn't work. Think of the silver lining though, what if they had signed Anibal Sanchez instead? he would have won more games and the draft picks would have been lower. Kris Bryant and Kyle Schwarber would not be here. Granted that wasn't the goal but it is an odd benefit to Jackson sucking for 3 years.

 

[beckdawg]

The thing is they can pay it off now vs fix into next years budget.

Well they had to pay him the money next year whether they cut him or not unless you're saying they give him the entire pay out on this years budget. I'm unsure if that is actually how it works. I think he gets the money paid over the same period regardless of being DFA'd. If there is offset language though that would make a difference because if some pitching hungry need signs him for say $3-4 mil the cubs get that in savings.

I'm sort of surprised they didn't give Jackson another shot at the rotation when they traded for Richard. Clearly he'd worn out his welcome but I mean they were paying him and he's pitched decent this year. Either way, I'm not that broken up by it. I just figured they'd wait because they've been pretty frugal lately and $15 mil is a lot to eat to get nothing out of.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Well they had to pay him the money next year whether they cut him or not unless you're saying they give him the entire pay out on this years budget. I'm unsure if that is actually how it works. I think he gets the money paid over the same period regardless of being DFA'd. If there is offset language though that would make a difference because if some pitching hungry need signs him for say $3-4 mil the cubs get that in savings.

I'm sort of surprised they didn't give Jackson another shot at the rotation when they traded for Richard. Clearly he'd worn out his welcome but I mean they were paying him and he's pitched decent this year. Either way, I'm not that broken up by it. I just figured they'd wait because they've been pretty frugal lately and $15 mil is a lot to eat to get nothing out of.

The only time he was really bad this year was in pressure situations, so I think that's your answer. Months ago an accountant friend of mine who worked for the Indians FO many years ago told me that the Cubs probably had a date in mind where they could decide to eat the remaining salary. He looked up what baseball's fiscal year was now (it had changed since he worked in baseball) and told me that if Jackson didn't turn it around or was traded first that we could expect to see him DFA'd around 7/15. That was in March I think. It happened on 7/19. He texted me last night and said I told you so. Beancounters know.

 

[beckdawg]

The only time he was really bad this year was in pressure situations, so I think that's your answer. Months ago an accountant friend of mine who worked for the Indians FO many years ago told me that the Cubs probably had a date in mind where they could decide to eat the remaining salary. He looked up what baseball's fiscal year was now (it had changed since he worked in baseball) and told me that if Jackson didn't turn it around or was traded first that we could expect to see him DFA'd around 7/15. That was in March I think. It happened on 7/19. He texted me last night and said I told you so. Beancounters know.

Well like I said I was totally uninvested in him so seeing Jackson DFA'd wasn't a big deal to me. Just think if the plan was to DFA after x date anyways you could have gave him a few starts that Richard took and hope that maybe he showed enough to either A) keep him around as a 5th starter or B) build something resembling trade value where you could swap the money owed to him for maybe someone like a Micheal Bourn to throw out an example.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Well like I said I was totally uninvested in him so seeing Jackson DFA'd wasn't a big deal to me. Just think if the plan was to DFA after x date anyways you could have gave him a few starts that Richard took and hope that maybe he showed enough to either A) keep him around as a 5th starter or B) build something resembling trade value where you could swap the money owed to him for maybe someone like a Micheal Bourn to throw out an example.

I'm with you there. Maybe he would have been better than Richard and maybe there would have been a taker in a pitching starved market. I think I might have tried that tack, but I'm not Joe Maddon and it's been fairly clear he wanted no part of counting on Jackson to win. It is what it is.

 

[beckdawg]

I guess technically they still could trade him. I think they have a week after DFA'ing him to make a move which is what we saw with Barney and the C Lopez they dealt away more recently.

 

[JZsportsfan]

He was having a solid season, but nobody is going to take on a $15 million contract for a long relief pitcher

 

[beckdawg]

He was having a solid season, but nobody is going to take on a $15 million contract for a long relief pitcher

You wouldn't necessarily have to. The cubs could throw in money into a deal to get him down to a palatable amount. For example, if the cubs eat $11 mil he'd have $4 mil remaining for the next year and a half. The cubs benefit because they maybe get a fringey prospect or a bench player now and they don't have to pay all $15 mil. The other team gets a long reliever who might be a 5th starter on a second division team at $4 mil for 1.5 years.