The Marmol/Haren Trade That Wasn't

[Sammy Sofa]

Shocker: Cubs fan can only remember Cubs trades that fell through.

 

Also: Cubs fan thinks trading Dempster and Marmol in 2012 qualifies as "major news."

[SABR Gamer]

How many times do they get passes though? It's always someone else's fault. But the Soler, Dempster, and Haren situations have a common denominator, the Cubs. And while this may happen a lot, it doesn't happen publicly a lot.

 

I'm baffled by the sheer number of people who seem to honestly believe this. Or that seem to think the rest of baseball is keeping some kind of running tally and laughing at the Cubs over it.

 

How many major trades/signings can you remember in recent years that we're reported as sure things by major outlets and respected sources and turned out to be no goes? ESPN and CBS had this. Dempster and Soler were reported by some major sources as well. Obviously, the Twitter age is responsible for this, but I can't think of many other major non-trades that were prematurely reported as done deals by multiple respected sources.

 

There was also the Pujols fiasco last year, also Twitter generated, but the last pre-Twitter debacle of this sort I can remember was Peavy, also the Cubs.

 

Do you ever wonder that maybe it's because they are the only team you pay attention to...?

[AlwaysaCub]

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove12/story/_/id/8516612/ranking-josh-hamilton-zack-greinke-rest-top-50-free-agents-mlb

 

ESPN Insider link to Keith Law's top 50 free agents. Apologies if someone posted this earlier. Anyway, here's part of the Haren blurb (Law has hinted at this article all week on twitter, so it's unlikely he wrote it post the non-trade news):

 

Haren has the plus command and control to be successful even with a fringe-average fastball as long as he has that splitter working and missing bats. But getting a consistent release point is difficult with back trouble, and Haren has never been able to strike guys out purely with stuff.

 

The risk associated with a pitcher who has had back trouble -- while this was Haren's first DL stint, it wasn't his first bout of back pain -- is enormous, which will likely limit how much teams are willing to guarantee Haren. The flip side is that, when healthy, he is reliable and pitches at a very high level, someone who would be a No. 2 in just about any rotation.

 

K.Law ranks Haren as the #7 free agent, but put Kyle Lohse one spot higher.

Edited November 3, 2012 by AlwaysaCub

[KaiserCesar]

Wow. This is a pretty huge thread for a potential deal involving a couple of 30+ year old guys with one expensive year left on their deal. The upside seemed to be a possibly better trading chip come July? If the alternative is just signing Haren or some other SPs while holding onto Marmol, then this whole thing seems pretty inconsequential. I trust the FO knew something we didn't if they didn't pull the trigger.

[Post Count Padder]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

 

Obviously no one knows for sure, but the reports seem to be coalescing around there being a deal in place but the Cubs pulled out before it was finalized, probably because they didn't like something in Haren's medical records.

[23sharks]

This kind of stuff happens to other teams all the time, too, we just don't pay as much attention to them.

 

The fact that the Angels were unable to find a single team to take Haren at effectively 1/12 is pretty telling that the Cubs did nothing wrong here.

 

Yeah, I just had this same conversation with another Cubs fan. It probably seems like more funky things happen to the team you follow, both on and off the field, because you are paying a lot more attention to all the moves they make.

[Sammy Sofa]

This kind of stuff happens to other teams all the time, too, we just don't pay as much attention to them.

 

The fact that the Angels were unable to find a single team to take Haren at effectively 1/12 is pretty telling that the Cubs did nothing wrong here.

 

Yeah, I just had this same conversation with another Cubs fan. It probably seems like more funky things happen to the team you follow, both on and off the field, because you are paying a lot more attention to all the moves they make.

 

Right. It's easy to inflate the importance of something that's pretty much a non-story for basically everyone else beyond these two teams.

[Little Slide Rooter]

How many times do they get passes though? It's always someone else's fault. But the Soler, Dempster, and Haren situations have a common denominator, the Cubs. And while this may happen a lot, it doesn't happen publicly a lot.

 

I'm baffled by the sheer number of people who seem to honestly believe this. Or that seem to think the rest of baseball is keeping some kind of running tally and laughing at the Cubs over it.

 

How many major trades/signings can you remember in recent years that we're reported as sure things by major outlets and respected sources and turned out to be no goes? ESPN and CBS had this. Dempster and Soler were reported by some major sources as well. Obviously, the Twitter age is responsible for this, but I can't think of many other major non-trades that were prematurely reported as done deals by multiple respected sources.

 

There was also the Pujols fiasco last year, also Twitter generated, but the last pre-Twitter debacle of this sort I can remember was Peavy, also the Cubs.

 

Do you ever wonder that maybe it's because they are the only team you pay attention to...?

 

Thought about that. It's one thing if it comes from a local media, but when it starts being reported by out of market sources, anyone who follows them on Twitter is going to see it. I really can't think of any major leaks of trades that became non-trades/signings after it had been reported by that many outlets. CBS and ESPN had this one. The Dempster trade reached beyond the local media, as did Soler.

[weitliz]

Psych.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Well, this is the perfect pickup for what we are doing so long as it doesn't cost any real prospects.

 

He is on a one-year contract. We need starting pitchers. If he does well, he is traded at the deadline. If he doesn't, he's gone after the season. We also don't have to convince him to only sign a one-year contract like we would some free agent pitcher.

 

I'd almost be surprised if this didn't happen, unless multiple teams have strong interest and start to actually offer up some sort of package.

 

Its the perfect pickup even if it does cost a decent prospect (someone in the Vitters/Watkins/McNutt vein?).

 

Worst case (assuming his back is OK and his performance after his return indicates that) is he doesn't bounce back and you make in a QO next year and get him back on another pillow contract/get draft pick compensation if he signs elsewhere. Best case is he is the top targeted SP at the trade deadline.

 

Trading for Haren is basically going to guarantee that at the very least, you get to add at least a first round-ish prospect down the line. Don't really think of what Haren will do for the Cubs on the field next year (because we aren't going to contend), think about what Haren will net the Cubs when he leaves. And that will be more than just a decent prospect.

 

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DEAD

[illiniguy]

How many times do they get passes though? It's always someone else's fault. But the Soler, Dempster, and Haren situations have a common denominator, the Cubs. And while this may happen a lot, it doesn't happen publicly a lot.

 

I'm baffled by the sheer number of people who seem to honestly believe this. Or that seem to think the rest of baseball is keeping some kind of running tally and laughing at the Cubs over it.

 

How many major trades/signings can you remember in recent years that we're reported as sure things by major outlets and respected sources and turned out to be no goes? ESPN and CBS had this. Dempster and Soler were reported by some major sources as well. Obviously, the Twitter age is responsible for this, but I can't think of many other major non-trades that were prematurely reported as done deals by multiple respected sources.

 

There was also the Pujols fiasco last year, also Twitter generated, but the last pre-Twitter debacle of this sort I can remember was Peavy, also the Cubs.

 

Do you ever wonder that maybe it's because they are the only team you pay attention to...?

 

Thought about that. It's one thing if it comes from a local media, but when it starts being reported by out of market sources, anyone who follows them on Twitter is going to see it. I really can't think of any major leaks of trades that became non-trades/signings after it had been reported by that many outlets. CBS and ESPN had this one. The Dempster trade reached beyond the local media, as did Soler.

Arod to the red sox in 04? What do I win?

[javy knows my name]

Well, this is the perfect pickup for what we are doing so long as it doesn't cost any real prospects.

 

He is on a one-year contract. We need starting pitchers. If he does well, he is traded at the deadline. If he doesn't, he's gone after the season. We also don't have to convince him to only sign a one-year contract like we would some free agent pitcher.

 

I'd almost be surprised if this didn't happen, unless multiple teams have strong interest and start to actually offer up some sort of package.

 

Its the perfect pickup even if it does cost a decent prospect (someone in the Vitters/Watkins/McNutt vein?).

 

Worst case (assuming his back is OK and his performance after his return indicates that) is he doesn't bounce back and you make in a QO next year and get him back on another pillow contract/get draft pick compensation if he signs elsewhere. Best case is he is the top targeted SP at the trade deadline.

 

Trading for Haren is basically going to guarantee that at the very least, you get to add at least a first round-ish prospect down the line. Don't really think of what Haren will do for the Cubs on the field next year (because we aren't going to contend), think about what Haren will net the Cubs when he leaves. And that will be more than just a decent prospect.

 

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DEAD

 

RELEASE CHOCOLATEMILK IMMEDIATELY

[Guest]

RIP :(

[minnesotacubsfan]

LOCK THREAD HE'S DEAD

[Wilson A2000]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

 

Obviously no one knows for sure, but the reports seem to be coalescing around there being a deal in place but the Cubs pulled out before it was finalized, probably because they didn't like something in Haren's medical records.

 

But can't you see his medical records before a deal if seriously discussed? It's not like he got a physical between the twitter rumors and the actual collapse.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

 

Obviously no one knows for sure, but the reports seem to be coalescing around there being a deal in place but the Cubs pulled out before it was finalized, probably because they didn't like something in Haren's medical records.

 

But can't you see his medical records before a deal if seriously discussed? It's not like he got a physical between the twitter rumors and the actual collapse.

 

I have no idea. I always imagined that the teams just talk about player health until the deal is pretty close, then at the last minute begin to exchange formal medical histories.

 

The alternative explanation some have floated is that the Angels at the last minute tried to extract an extra player out of the Cubs, possibly Brett Jackson, and the Cubs were so annoyed they flipped the bird and nixed the whole deal.

[Guest]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

 

Obviously no one knows for sure, but the reports seem to be coalescing around there being a deal in place but the Cubs pulled out before it was finalized, probably because they didn't like something in Haren's medical records.

 

But can't you see his medical records before a deal if seriously discussed? It's not like he got a physical between the twitter rumors and the actual collapse.

 

I have no idea. I always imagined that the teams just talk about player health until the deal is pretty close, then at the last minute begin to exchange formal medical histories.

 

The alternative explanation some have floated is that the Angels at the last minute tried to extract an extra player out of the Cubs, possibly Brett Jackson, and the Cubs were so annoyed they flipped the bird and nixed the whole deal.

I've wondered if it came out during the negotiations that they were going to non-tender Haren anyway. In which case, if they value Marmol as a piece for 2013 or a tradeable asset, why give him up when they can just sign Haren anyway?

[Wilson A2000]

I don't feel likereading/don't have time to read through every page. How come this deal fell apart? Couldn't agree on money changing hands? Didn't like Haren's medical records?

 

Obviously no one knows for sure, but the reports seem to be coalescing around there being a deal in place but the Cubs pulled out before it was finalized, probably because they didn't like something in Haren's medical records.

 

But can't you see his medical records before a deal if seriously discussed? It's not like he got a physical between the twitter rumors and the actual collapse.

 

I have no idea. I always imagined that the teams just talk about player health until the deal is pretty close, then at the last minute begin to exchange formal medical histories.

 

The alternative explanation some have floated is that the Angels at the last minute tried to extract an extra player out of the Cubs, possibly Brett Jackson, and the Cubs were so annoyed they flipped the bird and nixed the whole deal.

I've wondered if it came out during the negotiations that they were going to non-tender Haren anyway. In which case, if they value Marmol as a piece for 2013 or a tradeable asset, why give him up when they can just sign Haren anyway?

 

What was Haren going to earn this year and what do you think he will get as a FA if non-tendered?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's already an FA. The Angels declined to pick up his option.

 

He had a $15.5 million team option for this coming year, and a $3.5 million buyout if the declined it. The idea was that if anyone wanted Haren on 1/$12, the Angels would send the $3.5 million they'd have to pay in the buyout anyway, and get some sort of trade value in return instead of nothing.

 

Since the deal fell apart and nobody else made a trade for him, we can probably assume that Haren gets a worse deal than 1/$12.

[Wilson A2000]

He's already an FA. The Angels declined to pick up his option.

 

He had a $15.5 million team option for this coming year, and a $3.5 million buyout if the declined it. The idea was that if anyone wanted Haren on 1/$12, the Angels would send the $3.5 million they'd have to pay in the buyout anyway, and get some sort of trade value in return instead of nothing.

 

Since the deal fell apart and nobody else made a trade for him, we can probably assume that Haren gets a worse deal than 1/$12.

 

Unless the Angels did want another player last minute. I could see 2 for $15-20.

[davell]

It completely depends on Haren's medicals. You have to think there's serious concern or he'd have been dealt. Even so, with as many teams as there are likely trying to contend, he could still see some 2-3 year offers, with the lack of pitching out there and his past success. Whether he wants that or a one year deal to try and up his stock again though, is anyones guess.

[Cubfanintheknow]

In the same vein as a couple other posters, the incredibly intelligent and totally unbiased Paul Sullivan viewed this non-trade as another embarrassment for the Cubs front office. But I'm trying to figure out how it's embarrassing. Was it embarrassing that they backed out? That news of the trade leaked? I really want to know how this is embarrassing.

[Outshined_One]

I'm happy to see the Cubs attempting to deal Marmol. That's what I will take away from this.

[NewUserName]

Psych.

 

As embarrassing as this may seem, it took me a moment to figure out what SIKE meant in the title of this thread. For some reason I was thinking Sick.