Marmol

[Cubs Fan Dan]

#expect to be approached abt Carlos Marmol trades. Price of free agent closers makes him a potential bargain. Cashner future closer? - Phil Rogers

 

I know it is Rogers speculation but what kind of return does Marmol have? Could he net Arencibia from the Jays giving the Cubs a chance to flip Soto in a package for a Gio Gonzales/Danks/Cahill type pitcher?

 

What teams may be interested and what is he worth? If he returns to form he is well worth the contract versus other closers out there.

[Sammy Sofa]

Marmol should definitely not be untouchable.

[XZero771679666304]

Marmol should definitely not be untouchable.

 

To take it a step further, I'd shop him (not aggressively). What I saw last year leads me to believe he's damaged goods. If the market for closers is hot, I'd definitely try and cash in. We have in house options to replace him.

[CUBZ99]

I know it is bad that I have to ask but did Hendry give him a no-trade clause?

[UMFan83]

Not sure why a team would give up anything that great for a $7 million closer who led the league in blown saves last year.

 

I could be wrong though. Perhaps teams focus more on how dominant he's been in the past and assume last year was unlucky for Marmol.

[Clem Fandango]

I know it is bad that I have to ask but did Hendry give him a no-trade clause?

 

Much to my surprise... no. He did not.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah Phil, they'd probably make Cashner the closer to Marshall can go be a LOOGY. I wonder how long it's going to take the Chicago sports media to even somewhat catch up.

[mookie]

Yes and more yes. This is a few seasons overdue.

[davell]

There are a bunch of closers on the FA market right now. But, Marmol is under contract for 2 years and under 17 mill. That has serious value, along with whether or not teams view last season as an aberration, which is certainly possible. Quade abused him last year and another team could think they'd use him differently and get his previous results. As for Soto........Levine or a guy with a question made mention of a scenario where the Cubs deal Soto, sign Varitek as a backup and start one of Castillo or Clevenger. Personally, I like this idea. Varitek would bring leadership and Soto would bring an excellent return. Plus, we'd find out for certain if we have a starter in either of Castillo or Clevenger. If one falters, give the other a shot. I seriously doubt we'd get worse production than what we have in Soto's "off" seasons anyway. Bottom line for me though, is if we can trade Marmol, Soto, and Byrd and receive value, it needs to be done.

[Guest]

The Cubs should not trade Soto.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, definitely not.

[huff]

i agree that soto needs to stay put.....but he is an asset that combined with a marmol or byrd could bring a nice return. I think theo will deal from a position of strength- we dont have much of that but one area we do have depth at is the bullpen and catcher. I dont want to deal soto but to me marmol is a nice piece for a team in the right situation.

[davell]

I know it's not cool to talk about trading Geo, but he'll be 29 next year. We'll have him for his age 30 season, then Theo will most likely let him walk. If we can turn him into a solid young pitching prospect or a young mid rotation starter still under team control, then why not trade him? Yeah, Castillo will be a downgrade offensively, but none of us know by how much. He might throw up a consistent .725ish OPS. If so, I can live with that. If he doesn't, throw Clevenger in there and see if he can. I think that one or the other will be OK.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because there's no rush to move him, because the Cubs have major offensive questions about next season, and because he could easily bounce back yet again and have a much better season, which would be both more productive for the Cubs and give you a better trade market for him.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's absolutely no way we get a young mid rotation starter in return for Geo. And Varitek's going to be 40 next season. Ugh, no.

[davell]

Yes, I agree completely that we're offensively challenged right now. But we have the ability to change that through FA and we probably will, at least to some extent. But what you say about Soto bouncing back and upping his value is possible, so is the opposite. And if that happens, he's a possible non tender candidate instead of a bigtime trade chip. I'm not saying give him away, not by any means. But if the return was a top 75ish pitcher or at least a mid rotation guy who's young and under team control, I'm listening.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, I agree completely that we're offensively challenged right now. But we have the ability to change that through FA and we probably will, at least to some extent. But what you say about Soto bouncing back and upping his value is possible, so is the opposite. And if that happens, he's a possible non tender candidate instead of a bigtime trade chip. I'm not saying give him away, not by any means. But if the return was a top 75ish pitcher or at least a mid rotation guy who's young and under team control, I'm listening.

 

He probably wouldn't unless he was part of an offer as opposed to the one piece.

[Brett]

I'm shocked at the level of aversion to dealing Soto - a guy who will be 29, who has tremendous value as one of the few offensive catchers in baseball who can also catch a good game, who may not be here for the time period the Cubs will be competitive (or, will be in his 30s), and whom the Cubs can at least try to replace internally.

 

Soto is just behind Marmol on my list of current players the Cubs whom, based on their actual value and theoretical replaceability internally, should strongly consider trading. It sounds like I'm in the minority on Soto.

[UMFan83]

ahh man come on. you dont trade soto before an even numbered season. hes due for a good year. trade him after this year.

[dew1679666265]

Because there's no rush to move him, because the Cubs have major offensive questions about next season, and because he could easily bounce back yet again and have a much better season, which would be both more productive for the Cubs and give you a better trade market for him.

 

I've been one of the biggest opponents of trading Geo on this board the entire season and offseason and as long as Welington Castillo is the replacement plan, I'll continue to do so. However, if the scenario is a duo of trades that centers a Marmol deal around receiving Arencibia and a Soto trade that nets us Danks, I'd have to really consider it.

 

Arencibia isn't an OBP guy, but he's cheap and slugs really well - .507 career minor league SLG and .438 majors SLG last year despite a .219 BA. He'll be 26 next year, but he's cheap for a long time (won't be a FA until 2017). He's a downgrade in the short term from Geo, but a much better long term solution. Add in that we'd get a potential Garza-type breakout potential in Danks for Geo and that's a tempting scenario. Now whether it's realistic, I doubt it.

[davell]

SSR, I have no interest in Varitek, let me make that clear. But, I can at least see how he could help change the atmosphere around the lockerroom. I'm not an intangibles guy, but if he was here one a one year, one mill contract, I'm not going to complain too much. But, he's a 40 or 50 game guy. Castillo or Clevenger have to pick up the rest of the games. N&G, I agree Soto isn't bringing back a controllable mid rotation guy on his own, but depending on who we're talking about and who we're talking about sending with Soto, I'm willing to listen.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm shocked at the level of aversion to dealing Soto - a guy who will be 29, who has tremendous value as one of the few offensive catchers in baseball who can also catch a good game, who may not be here for the time period the Cubs will be competitive (or, will be in his 30s), and whom the Cubs can at least try to replace internally.

 

Soto is just behind Marmol on my list of current players the Cubs whom, based on their actual value and theoretical replaceability internally, should strongly consider trading. It sounds like I'm in the minority on Soto.

 

It's not an aversion to the general idea of trading Soto; it's an "aversion" to the idea of moving him now when his value is pretty damn low and there's a decent chance he rebounds again. Trading him now would likely end up being too much of a "trade him just to trade him" move.

[davell]

To steer a thread titled "Marmol" back that direction, since I'm the one that veered off, what about a Marmol and Soto for David Wright package? Probably would include a few more names, but those being the main guys. Possibility? Anyway, literally after Castro and Garza, I'm willing to discuss everyone else. And I may even be able to be tempted on Garza. But, it'd have to be a HELL of a package.

[dew1679666265]

Soto is just behind Marmol on my list of current players the Cubs whom, based on their actual value and theoretical replaceability internally, should strongly consider trading. It sounds like I'm in the minority on Soto.

 

The internal replacability at catcher in the Cubs' system is pretty weak, honestly. Soto's inconsistent, but most catchers are and overall Geo's a top 10 catcher offensively in the majors. Castillo has posted a career .753 OPS in the minors. He did post good OPS' the past two years at AAA, but the PCL is notorious for bloating offensive numbers pretty dramatically. It's hard to point to those two years as evidence that he's figured something out.

 

The Cubs have some really good bullpen arms ready or nearly ready to replace Marmol, they don't have anything similar at catcher.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Scouting says he lost a few MPH on his stuff last year.

 

Statistical analysis says he was pretty much the same pitcher he's always been, outside of a return from unsustainable HR rates.

 

I'm very curious to see how much Hoystein will accept in a trade, just because of that dynamic. Might be a very small slice of insight into how they think.