Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[Tarver]

How many of these big contracts actually work out? The K-rod, BJ Ryan, Baez, Fuentes and Percival deals all turned out to be onerous at best and mostly disastrous for their respective teams. While FG or whomever can attempt to fix a value to the performance of Marmol to justify his salary, history shows most of these guys to be a waste of money. Edited August 3, 2011 by Tarver

[Sammy Sofa]

We'll see. I'm not confident.

 

Bringing up Rafael Soriano might have been ironically and depressingly fitting.

 

And whose WAR rankings are we going by? Fangraphs seems to have his highest at 3.1 last year. Everything else has been below 2. BR has last year as highest as well, at 3, then 2007 as the next best at 2.8.

[Guest]

We'll see. I'm not confident.

 

Bringing up Rafael Soriano might have been ironically and depressingly fitting.

 

And whose WAR rankings are we going by? Fangraphs seems to have his highest at 3.1 last year. Everything else has been below 2. BR has last year as highest as well, at 3, then 2007 as the next best at 2.8.

 

I don't think it much matters. Even if you use Fangraphs, there's been one season where he wouldn't be worth his current contract's AAV, and that's mostly due to a flukish walk rate. He hasn't appreciably changed as a pitcher in those 5 years either.

 

It is important to note though, that WAR isn't intended to be used to show one guy's 2.4 WAR season is better than another guy's 2.2 season. Drilling down the decimal point gets very hazy, which makes the reliever evaluation more difficult with how few IP they have. We can comfortably say that Marmol is a 1+ WAR pitcher, and has dabbled with being a 2-3 WAR pitcher on more than one occasion. Considering the dollar value of a win and his performance thus far, he'd probably have to have 2 of the worst years of his career to not be worth his current deal.

[Sammy Sofa]

Like I said, we'll see. I'll be really surprised if he's worth $17 million the next two years.

[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.

 

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.

Whether or not it was a good idea for the Cubs to hand out that contract to Marmol is irrelevant to the discussion of what his trade value is.

 

So long as the contract is below-market (and it is), then it won't be an impediment to trading him (like you said it would be). In fact a below-market contract boosts his trade value.

 

Harp on the year he's having if you wish, but the contract isn't hindering any trade efforts, is the bottom line.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

[Brett]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

 

Indeed. Including to the Cubs. Negative implications.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

 

Indeed. Including to the Cubs. Negative implications.

 

That is my concern, yes. It's not a backbreaker or anything of the sort...I just fear it'll be yet another unfortunate signing in a long line of them dished out by Jim Hendry.

[davearm2]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract.

 

Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone.

 

I'll leave it to the assembled masses to determine which position is more reasonable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract.

 

Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone.

 

I never said that.

 

And no, a bad contract is easily subjective from team to team. Just because one team would be "happy" to have the contract doesn't make it a good one. That's a moronic thing to conclude. The Yankees can be "happy" with pretty much any contract that exists because of how much money they have available to them. That doesn't make all of the contracts they sign "good."

 

I mean, you recognize that there are teams that cannot or not simply will not spend $20 million on a reliever, right?

 

Once again, as you always do, you're trying to establish wholly unrealistic black and white parameters to frame your argument. You then create a ridiculously broad and absolute hypothetical that nobody suggested or was arguing in the first place, except in your head.

[davearm2]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract.

 

Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone.

 

I never said that.

 

And no, a bad contract is easily subjective from team to team. Just because one team would be "happy" to have the contract doesn't make it a good one. That's a moronic thing to conclude. The Yankees can be "happy" with pretty much any contract that exists because of how much money they have available to them. That doesn't make all of the contracts they sign "good."

 

I mean, you recognize that there are teams that cannot or not simply will not spend $20 million on a reliever, right?

Darn near every team in baseball has paid big $$$ for a closer, so that last point falls completely flat. Not that it was relevant in the first place. What the least interested buyer will or won't pay for something is completely meaningless. It's obviously the most interested buyers that set the market.

 

So *you* wouldn't pay a reliever $20M. Great! So what?

[Sammy Sofa]

Exactly what I've said.

[davearm2]

I accept your concession.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, hush. You said something dumb again and everyone laughed and now we've moved on.

[davearm2]

Oh, hush. You said something dumb again and everyone laughed and now we've moved on.

That's weak, even for you.

 

Especially given the folks laughing were laughing at you.

 

Which I suppose explains your urgency to move on.

[Sammy Sofa]

Move on, nothing. I made my point and there's no reason to keep rehashing it with you because you keep making up these [expletive] "would you rather?" scenarios like it's some kind of checkmate. We can keep this up as long you like.

 

I mean, you flat out think Marmol's contract isn't any kind of detriment if the Cubs tried to deal him to a number of different teams. What he costs limits both the number of teams they could even trade him to AND what the Cubs can get in return since that would hinge on how much the Cubs are willing to pick up. You keep talking about "market value" like Marmol's contract is nothing and practically any team would love to have to pay it, and that's just obviously wrong.

 

Let's just look at the Rangers, since that's who reportedly were interested in Marmol. The biggest contract they've got a reliever right now is $6.25 million. That's his entire contract, not just what he's making right this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the Rangers almost certainly would have been happy to take the nearly $20 million owed Marmol because it's "market value" if only the Cubs had been willing to trade him. You really don't think the Cubs wouldn't have had to kick in a significant portion of that contract to get anything in return? The Rangers certainly upped their spending between 2010 and 2011, but their actual moves at the deadline indicated they wanted more affordable bullpen talent as opposed to guys already being paid a lot. What's most likely is that they approached the Cubs seeing the situation they're in and were hopping to snag a useful pitcher whose old team would be picking up a good chunk of the tab out of the hope of "rebuilding."

[dew1679666265]

I'll be the peacemaker here (or try at least). I think it's unfair to call Marmol's contract bad, since that tends to imply that his value is going to be pretty significantly less than what he's going to be paid. At the same time, it is going to be a pretty big hindrance to trading him since it'll take so many teams out of the running.

 

It certainly would have been better, if the plan was to trade him soon, to deal him before you signed the new contract - that way the new team could work out their own deal with him. However, I don't think the Cubs will have to eat most or all of the salary for teams to have real interest in him. If he rebounds next year, teams will see the dominance and the saves and will give up good value despite the money. The Cubs just won't have the same negotiating power they would have had were they to trade him before he got expensive.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll be the peacemaker here (or try at least). I think it's unfair to call Marmol's contract bad, since that tends to imply that his value is going to be pretty significantly less than what he's going to be paid. At the same time, it is going to be a pretty big hindrance to trading him since it'll take so many teams out of the running.

 

It certainly would have been better, if the plan was to trade him soon, to deal him before you signed the new contract - that way the new team could work out their own deal with him. However, I don't think the Cubs will have to eat most or all of the salary for teams to have real interest in him. If he rebounds next year, teams will see the dominance and the saves and will give up good value despite the money. The Cubs just won't have the same negotiating power they would have had were they to trade him before he got expensive.

 

Right. I really wish that the Cubs had held off on the big raise, or had seriously considered moving him after last season. davearm2 is sorta right in regards that there a number of highly paid relievers and closers out there...unfortunately most of them tend not to be worth it. Those guys also tend to limit the number of teams you can deal someone like Marmol to since so few have more than one reliever/closer with a contract that big. Marmol is especially risky due to how wild he is and how much of an injury risk he is. If he's amazing the next two seasons and ends up being worth his money and I'm totally wrong I'll love it. I'm just worried that I'm not.

 

And the eating salary part is really going to depend on the team. I seriously doubt the Rangers were willing to pick up a contract like that in full.

[Tracer Bullet]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract.

 

Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone.

 

I'll leave it to the assembled masses to determine which position is more reasonable.

 

It's only a bad contract if no other team would take it? Come on. That's ridiculous.

[davearm2]

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract.

 

Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone.

 

I'll leave it to the assembled masses to determine which position is more reasonable.

 

It's only a bad contract if no other team would take it? Come on. That's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all.

 

A contract no other team would offer is bad (and detracts from trade value).

 

If it's a contract a handful of teams would offer, then it's market rate (and neither adds to, nor detracts from trade value).

 

If it's a contract many teams would offer, then it's a bargain (and adds to trade value).

 

Marmol's deal is definitely not in the first category.

[Sammy Sofa]

Those aren't real categories.

 

That's the same as when you randomly decide people only have two choices to pick from.

[davearm2]

I'll be the peacemaker here (or try at least). I think it's unfair to call Marmol's contract bad, since that tends to imply that his value is going to be pretty significantly less than what he's going to be paid. At the same time, it is going to be a pretty big hindrance to trading him since it'll take so many teams out of the running.

 

It certainly would have been better, if the plan was to trade him soon, to deal him before you signed the new contract - that way the new team could work out their own deal with him. However, I don't think the Cubs will have to eat most or all of the salary for teams to have real interest in him. If he rebounds next year, teams will see the dominance and the saves and will give up good value despite the money. The Cubs just won't have the same negotiating power they would have had were they to trade him before he got expensive.

I would question whether a team would rather trade for Marmol knowing he's an impending free agent, or trade for him with the cost certainty of 2 years and ~$17M left.

 

A team wishing to keep him beyond this year would want the contract in place, I would think, since he's not going to sign for less than that.

[davearm2]

Those aren't real categories.

 

That's the same as when you randomly decide people only have two choices to pick from.

You're just being difficult. There's obviously a continuum at work here, ranging from awful to about right to incredible bargain, which is what I was illustrating.

[Sammy Sofa]

Or they do the smarter thing and trade for both Mike Adams and Uehara. Adams is under control through next year (arbitration after this year) and Uehara is under control through 2015 (arbitration after this year). Both combined are likely going to be getting around what Marmol makes in a year over the next 2 seasons (probably about $8-$10 million).

[Sammy Sofa]

Those aren't real categories.

 

That's the same as when you randomly decide people only have two choices to pick from.

You're just being difficult. There's obviously a continuum at work here, ranging from awful to about right to incredible bargain, which is what I was illustrating.

 

Well, no, you weren't doing that. You were, yet again, assigning strict parameters that don't exist but are necessary for you to make your point.

 

You're right, there is a fluctuating continuum, but it's fluctuating on a team by team basis based on needs and ability, not a flat market scale.