White Sox wanted Marmol for Dye

[rickrolled]

I apologize if this was posted already...

 

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6489418

 

The Cubs inquired about outfielder Jermaine Dye but the discussion ended quickly when the White Sox asked for reliever Carlos Marmol.

[Rob]

I figured that would be the case.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Wow, good job Jimbo. I'm actually impressed by that.

 

It's nice to see he actually sees the value that Marmol brings to this club.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Butterscup

[Electron Blue]

good job, JH, way to handle yourself.

[TysonCBulls423]

this is encouraging

[anabiono]

i think all the cubs fans should chant griffey at the game tomorrow!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

CHA CHA CHA!!!!

[Banedon]

i think all the cubs fans should chant griffey at the game tomorrow!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

GRIFFEY!!!

 

CHA CHA CHA!!!!

 

I think the CHA CHA CHA portion of the chant is really what makes it work.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'd still be interested in Dye, but Williams is going to have to lower his demands. Jesus, that's ridiculous.

[tinkerstoeverstochance]

Is Kenny smokin' crack NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!

[Rob]

I'd entertain the thought of Wuertz for Dye... but definately no to giving up Marmol.

[Alfonso Soriano]

KW: We want to trade you guys Dye

JH:http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg

KW: But we want Marmol

JH: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/user_images/pics/1/8455000/ngbbs44328f77ced80.jpg

[JimSorgi]

Wow that would have been a horrible deal.

[Sarcastic]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

[Electron Blue]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

 

Look at our FA reliever acquisitions (via trade as well, I suppose). They cost too much (look at Eyre, Howry) and are unpredictable. Marmol has been lights-out this year and, in compared to MLB salaries, is basically free still. He's more of an asset to us right now than a trading chip, IMO.

 

(Don't get me wrong, though. If he's the dealbreaker in an offer for a huge impact bat -- more impactful than Dye, that is -- I certainly could let him go)

[Butterscup1679666578]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

 

I think we could, at the very least, get 3 or 4 good years out of Marmol. If I were to trade him off for a guy like Dye (which I would not be against at all), and he wasn't a rental and wasn't showing a large decline, I'd probably do it. But in this case, Dye being a rental and having an awful year, I wouldn't even think about it.

[craig]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

 

I strongly disagree. A really good middle reliever is invaluable. Since the Cubs turned the season around, Marmol's stabilization of the middle relief has been a major factor.

 

In this pitch-count and long-count age, it's also not that common to get 7 full innings even when you're winning. Having reliable relievers helps prevent your manager from going Dusty and having Prior pitch 130 pitches rather than take chances with an unreliable bullpen.

[Sarcastic]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

 

I strongly disagree. A really good middle reliever is invaluable. Since the Cubs turned the season around, Marmol's stabilization of the middle relief has been a major factor.

 

In this pitch-count and long-count age, it's also not that common to get 7 full innings even when you're winning. Having reliable relievers helps prevent your manager from going Dusty and having Prior pitch 130 pitches rather than take chances with an unreliable bullpen.

 

As good as Marmol has been, his one or two innings of solid relief work can never make or break a game. Relievers are never invaluable. The Cubs turn around had a lot more to do with ARam coming back and Soriano going on a hot streak that Marmol pitching well.

 

As for the pitch count issue, Marmol probably isn't going to save any star arms, no matter how good he is. That little intangible certainly has an affect, but not enough to make it a major selling point.

 

I will agree with other arguments that a consistent, cheap reliever is rare, but while that may increase their trade value, it doesn't increase the amount of wins they contribute to the team.

 

The bottom line is that relievers only get to pitch a limited number of innings, and that means that their value to the team is limited, much less that a starter or everyday position player.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'd give up Marmol for Dye if it were the Dye of last year, but he's hitting like crap this year, and hasn't been consistent at all over the course of his career. He's played well since the ASB, but if he goes back to the way he was playing earlier this year, you're stuck with a guy who isn't a big upgrade, and you've just traded away one of your best bullpen pitchers.

[GaborBako]

[

 

As good as Marmol has been, his one or two innings of solid relief work can never make or break a game. Relievers are never invaluable. The Cubs turn around had a lot more to do with ARam coming back and Soriano going on a hot streak that Marmol pitching well.

 

 

Ask the Brewers if one or two innings of solid relief work can make or break a game.

 

Nothing kills a team faster than a team with a leaky bullpen. You'd think any Cubs fan who lived through 2003 and 2004 would know that.

[mdwilla]

I would trade Marmol for the right impact bat in the outfield but Dye is not that bat. He's struggled this year, and has a history of injuries. Dye and Matt Thorton for Marmol would give me pause.

[Laura]

The one or two innings that Marmol has been putting up in games has made games.

[A New Era]

I know that Marmol has been a highly effective reliever, but unless the organization thinks he can make a successful transition back to the rotation, does he really have that much value? A reliever, even a good one, isn't that essential. I probably wouldn't trade him for Dye, considering his age and decline this year, but if I thought the team could get at least Dye's career line out of him, I'd have to think about it.

 

I strongly disagree. A really good middle reliever is invaluable. Since the Cubs turned the season around, Marmol's stabilization of the middle relief has been a major factor.

 

In this pitch-count and long-count age, it's also not that common to get 7 full innings even when you're winning. Having reliable relievers helps prevent your manager from going Dusty and having Prior pitch 130 pitches rather than take chances with an unreliable bullpen.

 

As good as Marmol has been, his one or two innings of solid relief work can never make or break a game.

 

You didn't watch most of the first half did you? It seemed like dozens of times someones two innings of work were "breaking" the game. I am in agreement with craig here. Marmol coming in and stabalizing the RP has been ONE of the important factors to the turn-around.

[inari]

[

 

As good as Marmol has been, his one or two innings of solid relief work can never make or break a game. Relievers are never invaluable. The Cubs turn around had a lot more to do with ARam coming back and Soriano going on a hot streak that Marmol pitching well.

 

 

Ask the Brewers if one or two innings of solid relief work can make or break a game.

 

Nothing kills a team faster than a team with a leaky bullpen. You'd think any Cubs fan who lived through 2003 and 2004 would know that.

 

The Cubs got within 5 outs of the World Series with their shaky bullpen and I don't feel biased in saying they would've definitely won it.

[Sarcastic]

The problem is that you aren't looking at the big picture. Can teams lose the lead while the bullpen is pitching? Yes. Does a bad bullpen mean that is more likely to happen? Yes. But a good offense and a solid rotation make it much less likely, because they mean that the team will end up with more late leads, and that said leads will be bigger more often. People only put such an importance on the pen because they happen to be the ones pitching late in the games. You can't look at when they pitch, you have to look at the overall contribution to the team.

 

A game is won by the team that scores more runs. Individual relievers get a relatively small number of chances to impact the team's run differential. That means that they are not all that valuable, no matter what time of the game they come in to pitch. Even though they are responsible for holding or giving up the lead late in games, they make a much smaller contribution to the team than starters or everyday players because they have significantly fewer appearances.

 

Back to the original argument. I've already said that I wouldn't trade Marmol for Dye because of his age and declining stats. But if, down the road, Marmol becomes a highly valued closer, the Cubs would be crazy not to field offers for him. Bullpen arms are vastly overrated, and they might get a nice haul for him.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Sarcastic

[NCCubFan]

Marmol for Arod? Yes, in a heartbeat.

Marmol for Dye? No way Jose.