The Marmol/Haren Trade That Wasn't

[Sammy Sofa]

and yes, the trade was reported on the cubs website earlier "marmol reportedly traded to angels for Haren" Obviously its since been taken down. Plus dont forget, the dempster gaff, missing out on cespedes, darvish, and failing to trade garza.

The Dempster "gaff" was on Dempster being an [expletive], not on the organization. Failing to trade Garza? How do you know what was being offered?

 

Dont you think they should have told dempster and marmol not to discuss anything until it was final? Maybe they did however, in dempsters case iirc they told him he was likely to be traded the next day and would have time to approve a deal or not. Then the media got wind of it and he was like there is no trade and the Braves were miffed. Then the dodgers got pissed because Dempster was supposedly in on the gm conversations unbeknownst to Ned Colletti. 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.

 

They can tell the players whatever they want; they can't actually force them to shut up and take it. Your perception of all of this seems way, way off. Dempster naysayed the initial deal to the Braves and the Cubs nixed the Dodgers deal; neither thing all that unusual or over the line. This current issue seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs announcing it or Marmol saying anything. Garza seemingly wasn't traded because they didn't like the offers they were getting before the season started, so basically you're saying you're mad at their "blunder" for not trading him simply to trade him as early possible and make you happy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

[Guest]

seriously you guys, look at that [expletive] face

 

Looks just like my dog.

[Guest]

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

[ctcf]

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.

 

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

[questionmarkgrace]

What "stadium deal?" How was it "getting rolling?" Joe Ricketts can "spout off" however he wants; he has next to nothing to do with the operations of the Cubs.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal.

 

I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago.

 

one month before Joe Ricketts flapped his mouth everything seemed positive and seemed to be gaining steam: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8622523

 

after Rahm is "livid" and "not returning calls:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/rahm-emanuel-joe-ricketts-jeremiah-wright_n_1525541.html

 

Rahm's comments in the first story were just lip service; Daley talked plenty over the years about how much Wrigley meant to the city and they wanted to support it and blah-blah-blah. There's nothing in that article that indicates things were any closer than the talk we've heard before and since.

 

I also don't care how pissy he was over Joe; that's what Emanuel does because he's a troll. Wrigley is literally falling down and the city isn't going to let it fall apart. Everything right now is posturing, but it's not going to not happen because Joe Ricketts is a hardcore Republican. That's not how these things work.

 

and yes, the trade was reported on the cubs website earlier "marmol reportedly traded to angels for Haren" Obviously its since been taken down.

 

So what? Like I said, deals fall apart all the team. Teams have info announced that turns out to be incorrect all the time. How is any of this embarrassing?

 

Plus dont forget, the dempster gaff, missing out on cespedes, darvish, and failing to trade garza.

 

Missing out on Cespedes was the only mistake you've listed, and it's hardly embarrassing. Dempster [expletive] the deal up himself, the Rangers blew everyone else's bid out of the water and Garza got hurt. So what? How is that an embarrassing "blunder?"

 

I expected more out of these Epstein and Co then the status quo. Right now were not getting it.

 

This isn't the "status quo," either in the sense of how things usually go or being relative with how the Cubs have been run in the past. Your entire thesis is petulant.

 

according to rosenthal after agreeing to the trade in principle of marmol for haren the cubs pulled the deal off the table last minute. Its on roto and twitter. Reneging on trades with other teams probably decreases the likelyhood that we can trade with them in the near future. We've already pissed off the dodgers with Dempster listening in on trade conversations and the braves by seeming to have jumped the gun before dempster approved the deal.

 

As far as wrigley renovations go there was plenty of positive press like the example above. Rahm was outlining a "plan" as detailed in the first article. After Joe Ricketts it all went negative and since then there has been very little talk about it. Not a coincidence, nor lipservice, nor posturing. Im not saying it killed the deal, yes it will get done but it looks bad and certainly delayed it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

 

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest.

[Rizzo Smash]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

[ctcf]

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

 

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest.

 

We apparently have differing definitions of "logical"

[Sammy Sofa]

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

 

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest.

 

I'm sure plenty of teams were interested. It doesn't mean those teams were willing to give up anything at the time that the FO thought was a near-lock to top what they could get moving him later in the season when some of those teams might be more desperate. It was a gamble that unfortunately didn't work out.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

 

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest.

 

We apparently have differing definitions of "logical"

 

Well, yes. Yours seems to be that we know our front office didn't make a mistake because our front office thought it was the right thing to do.

[ctcf]

That kinda assumes they got a worthwhile offer for him.

 

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest.

 

We apparently have differing definitions of "logical"

 

Well, yes. Yours seems to be that we know our front office didn't make a mistake because our front office thought it was the right thing to do.

 

You're the only one making actual assumptions here. I never said they didn't make a mistake.

[WrigleyField 22]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

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?

 

What can Harden demand on the open market. 2/16? 3/27?

[Rob]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

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?

 

What can Harden demand on the open market. 2/16? 3/27?

 

If Harden can get that at this point, Haren should be in the 5/90 range.

[Sammy Sofa]

according to rosenthal after agreeing to the trade in principle of marmol for haren the cubs pulled the deal off the table last minute. Its on roto and twitter. Reneging on trades with other teams probably decreases the likelyhood that we can trade with them in the near future. We've already pissed off the dodgers with Dempster listening in on trade conversations and the braves by seeming to have jumped the gun before dempster approved the deal.

 

Those Braves were so pissed off that they turned around and traded with the Cubs anyway for Maholm and Johnson. This isn't grade school recess; if there are deals to be made the teams involved will make them regardless of whether or not Carlos Marmol was traded for Dan Haren. You're trying your hardest to be miserable about this for...some reason, I guess.

 

As far as wrigley renovations go there was plenty of positive press like the example above. Rahm was outlining a "plan" as detailed in the first article. After Joe Ricketts it all went negative and since then there has been very little talk about it. Not a coincidence, nor lipservice, nor posturing. Im not saying it killed the deal, yes it will get done but it looks bad and certainly delayed it.

 

Rahm saying "me like Boston baseball setup" is hardly anything dramatic, and it was indicative of no actual progress in negotiations. The Cubs and the city were seemingly nowhere near a resolution before the Joe Ricketts incident and seemingly nowhere near it now. It was a blip on the radar that changed next to nothing. And who gives a [expletive] what it "looks" like?

[SouthSideRyan]

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]

[Irrelevant Dude]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

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.

[CUBZ99]

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

I'm all for giving the new regime a chance to turn things around, but the new regime has been less than impressive so far.

[WrigleyField 22]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

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?

 

What can Harden demand on the open market. 2/16? 3/27?

 

If Harden can get that at this point, Haren should be in the 5/90 range.

Oops. On my second Gin.

[Clem Fandango]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

 

Very. I wonder if the Cubs will even try to acquire him?

[davell]

The fact his option wasn't picked up is pretty telling. I feel better about [expletive] now.

[Guest]

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.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The fact his option wasn't picked up is pretty telling. I feel better about [expletive] now.

 

Yeah. If Santana could be traded at essentially the same price, but Haren couldn't, I think we can safely assume there was something wrong with Haren.

[WrigleyField 22]

RT @Alden_Gonzalez: #Angels have declined the option on Dan Haren.

 

Interesting.

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.