The Marmol/Haren Trade That Wasn't

[Rizzo Smash]

HOW IN THE [expletive] DO YOU USE THE BRAVES AS AN EXAMPLE WHEN THEY TRADED WITH US IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEMPSTER REJECTED THE TRADE HOLY [expletive] [expletive]

 

Yeah, that was hilariously awesome.

They probably felt really terrible about trading with us though!

[questionmarkgrace]

As far as Garza being traded I dont know the offers there were plenty of rumors going round and he had plenty of suitors. We would have gotten a lot more back then we did for dempster because he had another full year of control.

 

Yeah, they totally didn't trade Garza because it didn't have anything to do with the a season ending injury or anything.

 

It was foolish and risky not to trade Garza in the spring, when his value was at its logical peak. But that's a whole other story for a whole other thread.

 

 

This.

 

And the fact that he got hurt a week before the trade deadline. You cant let that happen. There was too much risk in holding him that long and too much interest in him not to trade him before then.

[Sammy Sofa]

1) They shouldn't have let it leak prior to getting Dempster's approval. How is it not the Cubs fault? If they had handled it properly there would have been no confusion.

 

Because the Cubs don't run an organization staffed by robots where you can simply switch off their voice circuits or whatever the [expletive] you want; leaks happen all the damn time when it comes to sports deals. The stick in the spokes was Dempster being relatively unusually stubborn about the whole thing.

 

2) How was it not a bad thing? They failed to trade him at his highest value. Now he is damaged goods and his value is most certainly less than it was during Spring Training last year.

 

And yet there's still an excellent chance he will be an in demand player they can get an excellent return for. It's hardly like that was their only shot to get a good return for Matt Garza.

 

3) They weren't even in the ballpark with Darvish. That is a failure on their part.

 

Reportedly nobody was in the Ranger's ballpark. Or state.

 

4) That was another failure on the Ricketts part and a silly slip up. Once again if it wasn't such a big deal, why were the other Ricketts in such panic trying fix things.

 

How were they "in a panic?" The press broke the story, then reported that Rahm was being Rahm and the Ricketts who actually run the team denied having anything to do with it. Then the story died and anyone who isn't a mutant sack of meatballs realized there was nothing there.

[Sammy Sofa]

As far as Garza being traded I dont know the offers there were plenty of rumors going round and he had plenty of suitors. We would have gotten a lot more back then we did for dempster because he had another full year of control.

 

Yeah, they totally didn't trade Garza because it didn't have anything to do with the a season ending injury or anything.

 

It was foolish and risky not to trade Garza in the spring, when his value was at its logical peak. But that's a whole other story for a whole other thread.

 

 

This.

 

And the fact that he got hurt a week before the trade deadline. You cant let that happen. There was too much risk in holding him that long and too much interest in him not to trade him before then.

 

Oh my God.

 

Kyle, these are your people.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[WrigleyField 22]

Or the health thing. But yea, I'd prefer to imagine the Theo is a boss scenario.

[Guest]

How is this or the Dempster thing the Cubs' fault? That's silly.

 

Failing to trade Garza wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Cespedes and Darvish weren't draft picks only allowed to negotiate with the Cubs (and believe me, I was rather disappointed they didn't get Darvish).

 

The Ricketts Super Pac/Rahm Emmanuel thing is just silly hogwash.

 

1) They shouldn't have let it leak prior to getting Dempster's approval. How is it not the Cubs fault? If they had handled it properly there would have been no confusion.

 

 

THE BRAVES SIDE LEAKED IT

 

2) How was it not a bad thing? They failed to trade him at his highest value. Now he is damaged goods and his value is most certainly less than it was during Spring Training last year.

 

pure conjecture. you have no idea when his value was highest. maybe they had teams bidding against each other during the finals weeks before the deadline. blaming them for the injury is stupid.

 

3) They weren't even in the ballpark with Darvish. That is a failure on their part.

 

yeah, what a failure that they didn't want to commit 100+ million dollars to a guy who has never pitched in the major leagues. even if you are in the camp that wanted him, it's highly obtuse to label that a "failure"

 

if pujols had a 1.050 OPS this season, you'd probably be bitching about theo lowballing him too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Oh my God.

 

Kyle, these are your people.

 

It takes awhile before the cool kids come on board. It's like when I was all "He's an idiot who is ruining our pitchers" and everyone was like "SHUT UP, IN DUSTY WE TRUSTY!" But they came around.

[Guest]

As far as Garza being traded I dont know the offers there were plenty of rumors going round and he had plenty of suitors. We would have gotten a lot more back then we did for dempster because he had another full year of control.

 

Yeah, they totally didn't trade Garza because it didn't have anything to do with the a season ending injury or anything.

 

It was foolish and risky not to trade Garza in the spring, when his value was at its logical peak. But that's a whole other story for a whole other thread.

 

 

This.

 

And the fact that he got hurt a week before the trade deadline. You cant let that happen. There was too much risk in holding him that long and too much interest in him not to trade him before then.

 

then why do trades ever happen right at the deadline? are they all stupid for waiting that long?

[Abe Frohman]

So, now the Cubs can sign Haren and keep Marmol?

[Irrelevant Dude]

Maybe Theo wanted them to throw in cash and when they didn't he called the bluff thinking he can sign him and keep Marmol?

That kind of defeats the purpose of getting rid of Marmol's contract.

The cost difference between Marmol and Haren would have been what 4-6M?

 

Getting rid of Marmol's contract wasn't value in itself, because he can still be a somewhat worthwhile bullpen asset. The value was just freed capital to do other things with the money. If you can pay less for Haren then, it kind of evens out.

I agree, but if you can pay less for Haren, that probably means there is something wrong with him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not entirely sure how a leaked trade that doesn't go through is supposed to make our front office look bad.

 

The fact that nobody else traded for Haren and he's now a free agent should speak volumes.

[Andy]

So, now the Cubs can sign Haren and keep Marmol?

They won't sign Haren, though, since some pitching-desperate team will pay more than the Cubs want to.

[davell]

Mark Bowman, a Braves beat guy broke the Dempster trade. And while there was a report or two that mentioned we bid under 20 mill on Darvish, there were others that had us really close. No one here has any idea what our actual bid was.

[Guest]

So, now the Cubs can sign Haren and keep Marmol?

They won't sign Haren, though, since some pitching-desperate team will pay more than the Cubs want to.

 

why? any team could have just had him for the likes of carlos marmol, and nobody took him.

[Sammy Sofa]

My guess is some other team signs Haren and then Theo (the terrible poster) will be chomping at the bit to post about every good start he has.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Mark Bowman, a Braves beat guy broke the Dempster trade. And while there was a report or two that mentioned we bid under 20 mill on Darvish, there were others that had us really close. No one here has any idea what our actual bid was.

 

This. The only people who know the non-winning Darvish bids are the GMs and some MLB official. If the MLB official wasn't the source of any leaks, then whoever it was had no incentive to tell the truth.

[Sammy Sofa]

HOW IN THE [expletive] DO YOU USE THE BRAVES AS AN EXAMPLE WHEN THEY TRADED WITH US IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEMPSTER REJECTED THE TRADE HOLY [expletive] [expletive]

 

Yeah, that was hilariously awesome.

They probably felt really terrible about trading with us though!

 

Braves hate the Cubs...but trade with them anyway.

 

Rahm is livid and everything falls apart...then says everything is cool.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/wrigley-field-renovations_n_1545382.html

 

IT'S ALL A SHAM.

[USSoccer]

Guys, Rahm Emanuel is not a man known for losing his temper. Isn't that proof enough that Ricketts caused serious damage to the bid?

[questionmarkgrace]

1) They shouldn't have let it leak prior to getting Dempster's approval. How is it not the Cubs fault? If they had handled it properly there would have been no confusion.

 

Because the Cubs don't run an organization staffed by robots where you can simply switch off their voice circuits or whatever the [expletive] you want; leaks happen all the damn time when it comes to sports deals. The stick in the spokes was Dempster being relatively unusually stubborn about the whole thing.

 

2) How was it not a bad thing? They failed to trade him at his highest value. Now he is damaged goods and his value is most certainly less than it was during Spring Training last year.

 

And yet there's still an excellent chance he will be an in demand player they can get an excellent return for. It's hardly like that was their only shot to get a good return for Matt Garza.

 

3) They weren't even in the ballpark with Darvish. That is a failure on their part.

 

Reportedly nobody was in the Ranger's ballpark. Or state.

 

4) That was another failure on the Ricketts part and a silly slip up. Once again if it wasn't such a big deal, why were the other Ricketts in such panic trying fix things.

 

How were they "in a panic?" The press broke the story, then reported that Rahm was being Rahm and the Ricketts who actually run the team denied having anything to do with it. Then the story died and anyone who isn't a mutant sack of meatballs realized there was nothing there.

 

 

1) this stuff doesnt happen with other teams though. When theo was with the Red Sox leaks were very rare and they never killed a deal.

2) Not it was the cubs best shot to get the best return for Garza. Dont forget now he is a rental player at the trade deadline. He wont garner what he would have with a years control remaining.

3) No, the blue jays were reportedly right with the rangers in bidding for Darvish. and it was widely reported that the amount would be very close to what it took to get Dice-k. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/21/runner-up-blue-jays-bid-more-than-50-million-for-yu-darvish/

4)It wasnt Rahm being Rahm. Each one of the Rickets children came out with their own press release condemning Joe Rickets statements at the time. And literally every article on the subject stated that it would hurt relations and 6 months later whatever plan Rahm did have hasnt even been brought up since.

[USSoccer]

 

1) this stuff doesnt happen with other teams though. When theo was with the Red Sox leaks were very rare and they never killed a deal.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA WHAT? THAT FRONT OFFICE IS LIKE A SIEVE.

[SouthSideRyan]

Gleeman was wrong. Olney reported the Cubs were the 2nd highest bidder.

 

http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-cubs/2012/7/4/3137514/cubs-finished-second-yu-darvish-posting-fee

[Warpticon]

They don't did a trade

 

hahahahahahaha

[Sammy Sofa]

1) this stuff doesnt happen with other teams though.

 

The [expletive] it doesn't.

 

When theo was with the Red Sox leaks were very rare and they never killed a deal.

 

Holy [expletive], do you really believe this?

 

2) Not it was the cubs best shot to get the best return for Garza. Dont forget now he is a rental player at the trade deadline. He wont garner what he would have with a years control remaining.

 

No [expletive]. Nobody is saying it turn out to be a mistake to wait to try and force a better deal at the deadline. It's hardly something crippling or some kind of humiliating failure, and it's not like they still won't likely get a good return for him. Are you really THAT bothered by this?

 

3) No, the blue jays were reportedly right with the rangers in bidding for Darvish. and it was widely reported that the amount would be very close to what it took to get Dice-k. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/21/runner-up-blue-jays-bid-more-than-50-million-for-yu-darvish/

 

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart.

 

4)It wasnt Rahm being Rahm. Each one of the Rickets children came out with their own press release condemning Joe Rickets statements at the time. And literally every article on the subject stated that it would hurt relations and 6 months later whatever plan Rahm did have hasnt even been brought up since.

 

It was barely brought up before, and there was seemingly no progress before it went down, so, ooooh, huge changes on the project that will get done regardless because we're talking about a hugely valuable asset for the city. Oh, and it was brought up...by Rahm, when he said after the fact it wouldn't impact things. So I guess you only believe certain things he says when it's convenient to make you feel more sad and cranky over the Cubs. But yeah, this was really embarrassing, because there's a score kept over those things, I guess.

[XZero771679666304]

Man, there is some grade A dumbassery going on in here.

[Guest]

Guys, I think if you debate the issue with questionmarkgrace for a couple more pages, you might change his mind.

 

Update: It appears I was incorrect.