Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[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.

 

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.

That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter that all 29 other teams aren't interested. The market is set by the two or three or four teams *most* interested.

 

Who cares if some team out there wouldn't want Marmol @ $20M? The Cubs aren't talking to them anyway. They're talking to the ones that would.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

That's possible. However, it depends on the exact parameters of the player's arbitration status. If Marmol were traded at the deadline and had one more year under contract for relatively cheap, then more teams would be interested - you could include teams like the Royals, Pirates, etc., in there who might want him for a season and then look to extend or trade him again. However, if his arbitration years were up after this season, then the current contract in place is probably best case scenario for any team out there - it leads to many teams looking for guys like Adams and Uehara who don't cost a lot, though.

 

I can't remember when Marmol's arbitration years were up when he signed the deal.

[dew1679666265]

That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter that all 29 other teams aren't interested. The market is set by the two or three or four teams *most* interested.

 

Who cares if some team out there wouldn't want Marmol @ $20M? The Cubs aren't talking to them anyway. They're talking to the ones that would.

 

It does matter, though, since those are teams that won't contribute to the bidding process for Marmol's services. The more teams you can get in on the bidding, the higher the return you can get for that player.

 

It's a hindrance, but how big a hindrance it is depends on how many teams are taken out of the bidding by the price tag.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter that all 29 other teams aren't interested. The market is set by the two or three or four teams *most* interested.

 

Who cares if some team out there wouldn't want Marmol @ $20M? The Cubs aren't talking to them anyway. They're talking to the ones that would.

 

Wait, what? What teams were reported being interested besides the Rangers? And how do you know they weren't looking at him with the hope of picking him up with the Cubs picking up part of the contract? You seem to be automatically conflating interest in a player with the desire/means to pay all of his salary.

[davearm2]

That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter that all 29 other teams aren't interested. The market is set by the two or three or four teams *most* interested.

 

Who cares if some team out there wouldn't want Marmol @ $20M? The Cubs aren't talking to them anyway. They're talking to the ones that would.

 

It does matter, though, since those are teams that won't contribute to the bidding process for Marmol's services. The more teams you can get in on the bidding, the higher the return you can get for that player.

 

It's a hindrance, but how big a hindrance it is depends on how many teams are taken out of the bidding by the price tag.

Nah. If, say, 25 teams are taken out of the bidding by the price tag, and 4 are left with serious interest, then the contract is not a hindrance.

[Sammy Sofa]

...

 

You just presented a scenario where the contract has drastically narrowed the pool of teams you can deal with.

 

And then said it's not a hindrance.

 

No, of course it's not impossible you could still get a good deal from those 4 teams...but how is it not a bad thing that a contract has significantly cut into your ability to deal a player? You don't think those 4 teams know that and aren't going to swing their leverage knowing that the Cubs effectively HAVE to deal with one of them if they can only trade a player to 4 different teams without paying part of the contract?

 

Basically you're talking an uphill battle if only 4 teams can or want to take on the contract you're trying to move.

[davearm2]

...

 

You just presented a scenario where the contract has drastically narrowed the pool of teams you can deal with.

 

And then said it's not a hindrance.

Correct.

 

Think of it like an auction.

 

If the most serious buyer is willing to bid $100, and the next three are willing to bid $80, $70, and $60, then it doesn't matter if there are 25 other buyers willing to bid between $0 and $50, or no other bidders at all.

 

You seem fixated on getting a whole crapload of teams interested in bidding less than the market-clearing price. There's no point.

[MWV]

 

Think of it like an auction.

 

If the most serious buyer is willing to bid $100, and the next three are willing to bid $80, $70, and $60, then it doesn't matter if there are 25 other buyers willing to bid between $0 and $50, or no other bidders at all.

 

Unlike an auction, a baseball trade is unlikely to involve purely fungible assets. Each team has a different pool of talent from which to present players for trade. A prohibitive contract restricts a broad swath of that talent pool from discussion.

[davearm2]

 

Think of it like an auction.

 

If the most serious buyer is willing to bid $100, and the next three are willing to bid $80, $70, and $60, then it doesn't matter if there are 25 other buyers willing to bid between $0 and $50, or no other bidders at all.

 

Unlike an auction, a baseball trade is unlikely to involve purely fungible assets. Each team has a different pool of talent from which to present players for trade. A prohibitive contract restricts a broad swath of that talent pool from discussion.

Each team has a pool of talent they could draw from to construct an offer valued at (hypothetically) $100, $80, worth of talent etc. Sure the individual players will obviously differ, but the overall value (talent) can of course be made to be similar.

 

That is to say, Jim Hendry might value team A's Smith and Jones roughly same as team B's Morris and Johnson.

 

If a team isn't willing to put together an offer worth the talent-equivalent of $50 then it doesn't really matter what their pool is.

[Sammy Sofa]

An auction? That analogy doesn't really work in what you're presenting because the return is being so severely limited if only 4 teams can take on the contract. That's a crappy auction where you've effectively barred dozens of prospective buyers at the door because you overpaid for the item you're auctioning and they can't afford the same cost. I just don't know why you seem to be dismissing the idea that having a wider group of teams to trade a player to is better than only 4 at the most that can take on the contract. You're cutting down on the likelihood of getting a truly worthwhile return. The 4 teams might now have prospects or players to spare that stack up with the trading team's wants/needs.

[CubColtPacer]

An auction? That analogy doesn't really work in what you're presenting because the return is being so severely limited if only 4 teams can take on the contract. That's a crappy auction where you've effectively barred dozens of prospective buyers at the door because you overpaid for the item you're auctioning and they can't afford the same cost. I just don't know why you seem to be dismissing the idea that having a wider group of teams to trade a player to is better than only 4 at the most that can take on the contract. You're cutting down on the likelihood of getting a truly worthwhile return. The 4 teams might now have prospects or players to spare that stack up with the trading team's wants/needs.

 

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July.

[Sammy Sofa]

An auction? That analogy doesn't really work in what you're presenting because the return is being so severely limited if only 4 teams can take on the contract. That's a crappy auction where you've effectively barred dozens of prospective buyers at the door because you overpaid for the item you're auctioning and they can't afford the same cost. I just don't know why you seem to be dismissing the idea that having a wider group of teams to trade a player to is better than only 4 at the most that can take on the contract. You're cutting down on the likelihood of getting a truly worthwhile return. The 4 teams might now have prospects or players to spare that stack up with the trading team's wants/needs.

 

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July.

 

Obviously. So it's crappy when the avenues for trading are even more limited by what's arguably an unwise contract.

 

I'm not saying they should only give out reasonable contracts with the idea they might have to trade a guy. I just don't understand how someone can think that trying to trade a player to only 4 teams instead of 24 is the same thing in terms of what you can potentially get back. It's harder to justify trading someone when there's fewer teams you can trade someone to. It means those few teams know that the team doing the trading is over a barrel because of the cost and you're more likely to get screwed.

[CubColtPacer]

An auction? That analogy doesn't really work in what you're presenting because the return is being so severely limited if only 4 teams can take on the contract. That's a crappy auction where you've effectively barred dozens of prospective buyers at the door because you overpaid for the item you're auctioning and they can't afford the same cost. I just don't know why you seem to be dismissing the idea that having a wider group of teams to trade a player to is better than only 4 at the most that can take on the contract. You're cutting down on the likelihood of getting a truly worthwhile return. The 4 teams might now have prospects or players to spare that stack up with the trading team's wants/needs.

 

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July.

 

Obviously. So it's crappy when the avenues for trading are even more limited by what's arguably an unwise contract.

 

I'm not saying they should only give out reasonable contracts with the idea they might have to trade a guy. I just don't understand how someone can think that trying to trade a player to only 4 teams instead of 24 is the same thing in terms of what you can potentially get back. It's harder to justify trading someone when there's fewer teams you can trade someone to. It means those few teams know that the team doing the trading is over a barrel because of the cost.

 

The only thing that seems even questionable about the contract though is the years. Marmol was going to make more money that that this year in arbitration guaranteed (both arbitration figures were well above what he actually got) and the next two years were likely arbitration awards if not a decent bit more. So the teams trading for him would have had to of been willing to pay that much money regardless if the Cubs gave him the deal or not. The only thing that changed is the team would have to assume more risk due to injury. So I don't see how the contract limited the number of teams because of money concerns.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe it didn't. Personally, I don't think the Rangers were willing to take on that contract without the Cubs picking some of it up, and as far as we know that's the only team that was after him. If his contract isn't such a hindrance with enough other teams, however, I really wish they would trade him sooner rather than later. Money aside, he's still too much of a serious injury risk for my liking.

[davearm2]

You really gotta feel for guys like Cliff Lee, Teixeira, Crawford, Holliday, Soriano, etc. etc.

 

The market for them was just so severely limited. Only maybe 4 teams could afford that kind of contract.

 

If only all 30 teams jumped into the bidding, they'd be sitting pretty.

 

And it's going to be a miserable offseason for Pujols too, I bet. He might have even fewer than 4 teams lined up to offer $250M+. He's screwed.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

You really gotta feel for guys like Cliff Lee, Teixeira, Crawford, Holliday, Soriano, etc. etc.

 

The market for them was just so severely limited. Only maybe 4 teams could afford that kind of contract.

 

If only all 30 teams jumped into the bidding, they'd be sitting pretty.

 

And it's going to be a miserable offseason for Pujols too, I bet. He might have even fewer than 4 teams lined up to offer $250M+. He's screwed.

 

That really does sound terrible. I'm not even sure I'd be able to look at myself if I was in that predicament. The guy's got a family to feed and the best he might get is 4 offers in the 200 million range? I suppose in this economy he should be counting his blessings, amirite?(!)

[TruffleShuffle]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvymkhAElr1qzxaqyo1_500.jpg

[Sammy Sofa]

It's like pissing into a [expletive] tsunami.

[davearm2]

Quit thinking you're the smartest guy in the room, and maybe you won't end up covered in [expletive] so much. :good:

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think I'm the smartest guy in the room; it's just hard to ignore how ridiculous your arguments are.

 

Love how you think the 24 team vs. 4 team scenario is the same when it comes to a team trying to trade a player who has a big contract vs. a big name FA being signed. I'll just sit back and let you further expound on how that analogy works and how you think it's the same situation. Here, I'll even help you out a little; the Cubs would be Albert Pujols in your analogy, and vice-versa. Explain how you think Albert Pujols hypothetically only having 4 teams being able to sign him has the same advantages and disadvantages as the Cubs hypothetically only being able to trade Marmol to 4 teams.

[Guest]

At some point, you have to come to the realization that you're arguing just to argue. That realization should probably come before the 3 page mark.