Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[Sammy Sofa]

Another shitty bit of analysis that hinges on the "trade guys just to trade them" mentality.

[dew1679666265]

Another [expletive] bit of analysis that hinges on the "trade guys just to trade them" mentality.

 

No kidding. Marmol and Byrd have no keeper value? There are very justifiable reasons to want to trade Marmol ASAP, but his lack of value to the club going forward isn't anywhere near the list.

 

The only way his analysis makes sense is if Jonah Keri is in the "Cubs won't compete for at least 3-4 years" camp.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Another [expletive] bit of analysis that hinges on the "trade guys just to trade them" mentality.

 

No kidding. Marmol and Byrd have no keeper value? There are very justifiable reasons to want to trade Marmol ASAP, but his lack of value to the club going forward isn't anywhere near the list.

 

The only way his analysis makes sense is if Jonah Keri is in the "Cubs won't compete for at least 3-4 years" camp.

 

What it comes down to is that a lot of people dont seem to think theres a difference between competing and becoming instant favorites to win the World Series.

[KingCubsFan]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

I used to think this, but I find that harder to believe considering what the Padres got for Mike Adams. And if Hendry was indeed offering to eat salary and still getting offered nothing, that's fine. But reports seem to suggest that he was basically ignoring calls on his players in a quest to give himself hope for next season, and that's a bit more concerning.

[jersey cubs fan]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

 

Why is that? I think it's probably the case where Hendry overvalues him based on his "ability" to rack up saves. Given the unnecessary longterm extension last year I'd bet he just has little to no interest in listening to any offer.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

I used to think this, but I find that harder to believe considering what the Padres got for Mike Adams. And if Hendry was indeed offering to eat salary and still getting offered nothing, that's fine. But reports seem to suggest that he was basically ignoring calls on his players in a quest to give himself hope for next season, and that's a bit more concerning.

 

There were no reports that the Cubs were willing to eat Marmol's contract; simply that there teams interested in acquiring (no doubt hoping they smelled blood in the water and he could be had for garbage). Whatever team picked him up would be paying him approx. $17 million dollars. Mike Adams is probably going to end up costing around $4 million.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

 

Why is that? I think it's probably the case where Hendry overvalues him based on his "ability" to rack up saves. Given the unnecessary longterm extension last year I'd bet he just has little to no interest in listening to any offer.

 

Which is why I don't think for a second the Cubs offered or were willing to accept any deal that had them picking up the tab. If that's the case then there's no way they were being offered anything but junk for a $17 million dollar closer having a bad year and with an arm in danger of falling off any time he takes the mound.

[KingCubsFan]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

I used to think this, but I find that harder to believe considering what the Padres got for Mike Adams. And if Hendry was indeed offering to eat salary and still getting offered nothing, that's fine. But reports seem to suggest that he was basically ignoring calls on his players in a quest to give himself hope for next season, and that's a bit more concerning.

 

There were no reports that the Cubs were willing to eat Marmol's contract; simply that there teams interested in acquiring (no doubt hoping they smelled blood in the water and he could be had for garbage). Whatever team picked him up would be paying him approx. $17 million dollars. Mike Adams is probably going to end up costing around $4 million.

Yeah, I don't doubt teams were trying to get him for nothing. My problem is that it seems Hendry just hung up on them, instead of gauging how much interest they really had by offering to pay part of the contract. Marmol at $5 million a year would have gotten a pretty nice return, I would think.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe...but I doubt it. I still think it was a case of other teams trying to buy low on an expensive guy having a bad year. Mike Adams, by contrast, is a relatively cheap guy having a great year.

[Guest]

Marmol picked a poor time of year to have a meltdown too.

[Backtobanks]

Right. I'd have zero problem trading Marmol for a good return, but I highly doubt the Cubs were offered anything that made trading him worth it.

I used to think this, but I find that harder to believe considering what the Padres got for Mike Adams. And if Hendry was indeed offering to eat salary and still getting offered nothing, that's fine. But reports seem to suggest that he was basically ignoring calls on his players in a quest to give himself hope for next season, and that's a bit more concerning.

 

There were no reports that the Cubs were willing to eat Marmol's contract; simply that there teams interested in acquiring (no doubt hoping they smelled blood in the water and he could be had for garbage). Whatever team picked him up would be paying him approx. $17 million dollars. Mike Adams is probably going to end up costing around $4 million.

Yeah, I don't doubt teams were trying to get him for nothing. My problem is that it seems Hendry just hung up on them, instead of gauging how much interest they really had by offering to pay part of the contract. Marmol at $5 million a year would have gotten a pretty nice return, I would think.

 

Do you have any evidence that Hendry "just hung up on them"?

[KingCubsFan]

Do you have any evidence that Hendry "just hung up on them"?

Various articles, probably linked from this site. I think Olney or Stark quoted an executive saying he had no idea what the Cubs were doing. Even some of the quotes from Hendry himself suggested he wasn't really interested in listening to what people had to offer for his players.

[Sammy Sofa]

I have little doubt that Hendry is overprotective on certain players, but it's one of those circumstances where he's sometimes right in spite of himself. Guys like Baker and Marshall ARE almost certainly more valuable to the Cubs than what would have been offered for them. Marmol likely wouldn't have netted much because of his bad contract and bad year. Byrd could have gotten a decent return this year, but he is someone the Cubs need next year, plus they still have another opportunity to move him if things go south before the deadline next year.

 

The mundane reality is somewhere in the middle between "Hendry is inexplicably holding on to guys" and "teams really wanted some of the Cubs players."

[davearm2]

I have little doubt that Hendry is overprotective on certain players, but it's one of those circumstances where he's sometimes right in spite of himself. Guys like Baker and Marshall ARE almost certainly more valuable to the Cubs than what would have been offered for them. Marmol likely wouldn't have netted much because of his bad contract and bad year. Byrd could have gotten a decent return this year, but he is someone the Cubs need next year, plus they still have another opportunity to move him if things go south before the deadline next year.

 

The mundane reality is somewhere in the middle between "Hendry is inexplicably holding on to guys" and "teams really wanted some of the Cubs players."

Marmol doesn't have a bad contract. You can't get a lights-out closer for less than 3/$20 on the free agent market.

 

Sure his performance this year has dropped his value some, but he'd still get that and more as a FA.

[Sammy Sofa]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

[davearm2]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

I can see already that this is another of your countless "it is true because I said so" arguments. Hard to argue against that "logic".

 

Meanwhile Rafael Soriano signed for 3/$35, so I'll stand by my view that Marmol would get paid more than his current contract if he were a free agent.

[Guest]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

 

Finding relievers as productive and consistent as Marmol is not as easy as finding a reliever that can close games. For the rest of his deal he'd have to pitch worse than he ever has as a reliever, which is 5 years running now, in order not to be worth his money. That's not a bad contract.

[Sammy Sofa]

I agree with you on that. The issue is that it's a stupid move that the Cubs shouldn't be making but keep making.

 

DON'T SIGN RELIEVERS TO BIG CONTRACTS.

[Sammy Sofa]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

 

Finding relievers as productive and consistent as Marmol is not as easy as finding a reliever that can close games. For the rest of his deal he'd have to pitch worse than he ever has as a reliever, which is 5 years running now, in order not to be worth his money. That's not a bad contract.

 

Disagree. I think nearly any reliever getting big money is a bad contract. I will not bend on this.

[davearm2]

I agree with you on that. The issue is that it's a stupid move that the Cubs shouldn't be making but keep making.

 

DON'T SIGN RELIEVERS TO BIG CONTRACTS.

So it's a bad contract by your standards, not by what-MLB-closers-get-paid standards. Got it.

 

You can perhaps guess which one matters more when one GM calls up another GM to discuss a trade.

[Sammy Sofa]

I agree with you on that. The issue is that it's a stupid move that the Cubs shouldn't be making but keep making.

 

DON'T SIGN RELIEVERS TO BIG CONTRACTS.

So it's a bad contract by your standards, not by what-MLB-closers-get-paid standards. Got it.

 

You can perhaps guess which one matters more when one GM calls up another GM to discuss a trade.

 

Yes, there are lots of bad contract that are routinely given out around baseball out of desperation or an ungodly amount of money to spend (great job pointing out R. Soriano getting paid by THE [expletive] YANKEES as some kind of model). It doesn't mean it's a good idea for the Cubs to follow suit. I don't know why you're not getting this.

 

And TT, Marmol is being paid $7 million next year and just shy of $10 million the next. He's barely worth the the $3.2 million he's making this year. He was worth over $12 million last year and $7 million in 2007, both of which are the closest he's come to matching or exceeding what he's going to be paid over the next 2 years. What are the odds he's going to be worth what he's getting with his massively backloaded contract? Especially coupled with his injury risk?

[Guest]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

 

Finding relievers as productive and consistent as Marmol is not as easy as finding a reliever that can close games. For the rest of his deal he'd have to pitch worse than he ever has as a reliever, which is 5 years running now, in order not to be worth his money. That's not a bad contract.

 

Disagree. I think nearly any reliever getting big money is a bad contract. I will not bend on this.

 

Giving Marmol 3/20 is hardly big money when the guy's been an elite reliever since Bush administration.

[Sammy Sofa]

No, he does have a bad contract, and he's certainly not a "lights out closer." Just because that's what he could have gotten elsewhere doesn't mean the Cubs should have given it to him. Very, very rarely do relievers/closers deserve contracts like that, and especially not ones who are as wild and as much of an injury risk as Marmol. The best bet is to just cycle through cheap/internal options when necessary and use the money to help make your team better in more important areas.

 

Finding relievers as productive and consistent as Marmol is not as easy as finding a reliever that can close games. For the rest of his deal he'd have to pitch worse than he ever has as a reliever, which is 5 years running now, in order not to be worth his money. That's not a bad contract.

 

Disagree. I think nearly any reliever getting big money is a bad contract. I will not bend on this.

 

Giving Marmol 3/20 is hardly big money when the guy's been an elite reliever since Bush administration.

 

See my post above. I'll bet good money that he's not worth the next two years of his deal. He's either going to get more wild and unreliable or on the DL too much.

[Guest]

And TT, Marmol is being paid $7 million next year and just shy of $10 million the next. He's barely worth the the $3.2 million he's making this year. He was worth over $12 million last year and $7 million in 2007, both of which are the closest he's come to matching or exceeding what he's going to be paid over the next 2 years. What are the odds he's going to be worth what he's getting with his massively backloaded contract? Especially coupled with his injury risk?

 

The odds of Marmol not putting up at least 4+ WAR in 3 seasons is pretty slim, injury risk included. This might be his worst season and he'll still be worth about 6 million.