Sammy Sofa

Or they do the smarter thing and trade for both Mike Adams and Uehara. Adams is under control through next year (arbitration after this year) and Uehara is under control through 2015 (arbitration after this year). Both combined are likely going to be getting around what Marmol makes in a year over the next 2 seasons (probably about $8-$10 million).

Those aren't real categories. That's the same as when you randomly decide people only have two choices to pick from.

I never said it was harmless. But there's tons of things that we enjoy without nearly the same restrictions that are far from harmless. And the cost of such legislation far exceeds the gain.

Wait, so we shouldn't ever legislate morality? That's not what I said. Murder is morally wrong. The issue is when you start crossing over into things like gambling and when and where you can buy booze and even prostitution where you're making laws more out out of a sense of outdated hysterical (and typically faith-based) morality than an actual legal need or problem. When you're making laws that way you're typically just creating more problems for yourself than solving any (mainly because you've just created more crimes and avenues for crime).

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would want anything done by the league. Unless he was pulling a Pete Rose or there's proof he was using coke there's really nothing there.

Seems right up there with outdated laws regarding prostitution and alcohol that are based more out of morality as opposed to an actual need for legislation.

Right. I really wish that the Cubs had held off on the big raise, or had seriously considered moving him after last season. davearm2 is sorta right in regards that there a number of highly paid relievers and closers out there...unfortunately most of them tend not to be worth it. Those guys also tend to limit the number of teams you can deal someone like Marmol to since so few have more than one reliever/closer with a contract that big. Marmol is especially risky due to how wild he is and how much of an injury risk he is. If he's amazing the next two seasons and ends up being worth his money and I'm totally wrong I'll love it. I'm just worried that I'm not. And the eating salary part is really going to depend on the team. I seriously doubt the Rangers were willing to pick up a contract like that in full.

OH MY GOD, 4 WINS IN A ROW. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!

Oh [expletive], it's Doumit.

DON'T PISS ME OFF, CEDENO.

Get ready for wild Marmol ride.

Move on, nothing. I made my point and there's no reason to keep rehashing it with you because you keep making up these [expletive] "would you rather?" scenarios like it's some kind of checkmate. We can keep this up as long you like. I mean, you flat out think Marmol's contract isn't any kind of detriment if the Cubs tried to deal him to a number of different teams. What he costs limits both the number of teams they could even trade him to AND what the Cubs can get in return since that would hinge on how much the Cubs are willing to pick up. You keep talking about "market value" like Marmol's contract is nothing and practically any team would love to have to pay it, and that's just obviously wrong. Let's just look at the Rangers, since that's who reportedly were interested in Marmol. The biggest contract they've got a reliever right now is $6.25 million. That's his entire contract, not just what he's making right this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the Rangers almost certainly would have been happy to take the nearly $20 million owed Marmol because it's "market value" if only the Cubs had been willing to trade him. You really don't think the Cubs wouldn't have had to kick in a significant portion of that contract to get anything in return? The Rangers certainly upped their spending between 2010 and 2011, but their actual moves at the deadline indicated they wanted more affordable bullpen talent as opposed to guys already being paid a lot. What's most likely is that they approached the Cubs seeing the situation they're in and were hopping to snag a useful pitcher whose old team would be picking up a good chunk of the tab out of the hope of "rebuilding."

At least Marshall is up and ready to go, right?

Oh, hush. You said something dumb again and everyone laughed and now we've moved on.

Oh, hai another 3-hit game for Starlin Castro!

HHHRRRRRRAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!

Garza is [expletive] cursed. Someone score some runs for this poor bastard, PLEASE.

Exactly what I've said.

Any team, yes. I'm assuming at least one team would be happy to have Marmol and his contract. Meanwhile, you are assuming *no* team would want Marmol and his contract. That's the only condition under which it is a "bad" contract, when the context is his trade value. A bad contract implies it represents negative value to everyone. I never said that. And no, a bad contract is easily subjective from team to team. Just because one team would be "happy" to have the contract doesn't make it a good one. That's a moronic thing to conclude. The Yankees can be "happy" with pretty much any contract that exists because of how much money they have available to them. That doesn't make all of the contracts they sign "good." I mean, you recognize that there are teams that cannot or not simply will not spend $20 million on a reliever, right? Once again, as you always do, you're trying to establish wholly unrealistic black and white parameters to frame your argument. You then create a ridiculously broad and absolute hypothetical that nobody suggested or was arguing in the first place, except in your head.

Indeed. Including to the Cubs. Negative implications. That is my concern, yes. It's not a backbreaker or anything of the sort...I just fear it'll be yet another unfortunate signing in a long line of them dished out by Jim Hendry.

I don't think "liking Hendry" necessarily means much of anything. Based on everything we've seen pretty much everyone in baseball who knows Hendry likes him. You can still like someone and fire them. And firing Hendry after this season is pretty [expletive] far from being impetuous.

Nonsense. You're assuming that "market value" means that any and every team would dish out such a contract or want to take it on, so your idea that his contract is irrelevant to his trade value is ridiculous. That contract is going to have varying value and implications from team to team.

Like I said, we'll see. I'll be really surprised if he's worth $17 million the next two years.

We'll see. I'm not confident. Bringing up Rafael Soriano might have been ironically and depressingly fitting. And whose WAR rankings are we going by? Fangraphs seems to have his highest at 3.1 last year. Everything else has been below 2. BR has last year as highest as well, at 3, then 2007 as the next best at 2.8.

Finding relievers as productive and consistent as Marmol is not as easy as finding a reliever that can close games. For the rest of his deal he'd have to pitch worse than he ever has as a reliever, which is 5 years running now, in order not to be worth his money. That's not a bad contract. Disagree. I think nearly any reliever getting big money is a bad contract. I will not bend on this. Giving Marmol 3/20 is hardly big money when the guy's been an elite reliever since Bush administration. See my post above. I'll bet good money that he's not worth the next two years of his deal. He's either going to get more wild and unreliable or on the DL too much.