Sammy Sofa

I don't think I'm the smartest guy in the room; it's just hard to ignore how ridiculous your arguments are. Love how you think the 24 team vs. 4 team scenario is the same when it comes to a team trying to trade a player who has a big contract vs. a big name FA being signed. I'll just sit back and let you further expound on how that analogy works and how you think it's the same situation. Here, I'll even help you out a little; the Cubs would be Albert Pujols in your analogy, and vice-versa. Explain how you think Albert Pujols hypothetically only having 4 teams being able to sign him has the same advantages and disadvantages as the Cubs hypothetically only being able to trade Marmol to 4 teams.

Eh, that's really only one crappy player too many. This is a day game after a night game in a new city in the middle of a stretch of 16 straight games. Players on an older team tend to hit the wall when those circumstances come up relatively late in the season. Soto definitely could use the day off, Colvin pretty much has to be out there and Byrd is an older player who plays a very athletic position and is still recovering from a pretty significant injury. Barney's the only player being out that seems excessive given how young he is.

It's like pissing into a [expletive] tsunami.

What terrible argument? Morality-based legislation against gambling is nothing new in this country. Though the details have changed over the years, that's still the basis of why things like anti-gambling laws exist and have continued to exist. The idea that it's legislated against because of some sound sense of "good" is just childishly naive. It's a combination of certain financial interests and grandfathered-in ideas of what certain segments of the population are convinced are "wrong" because of course they always have been.

Maybe it didn't. Personally, I don't think the Rangers were willing to take on that contract without the Cubs picking some of it up, and as far as we know that's the only team that was after him. If his contract isn't such a hindrance with enough other teams, however, I really wish they would trade him sooner rather than later. Money aside, he's still too much of a serious injury risk for my liking.

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July. Obviously. So it's crappy when the avenues for trading are even more limited by what's arguably an unwise contract. I'm not saying they should only give out reasonable contracts with the idea they might have to trade a guy. I just don't understand how someone can think that trying to trade a player to only 4 teams instead of 24 is the same thing in terms of what you can potentially get back. It's harder to justify trading someone when there's fewer teams you can trade someone to. It means those few teams know that the team doing the trading is over a barrel because of the cost and you're more likely to get screwed.

An auction? That analogy doesn't really work in what you're presenting because the return is being so severely limited if only 4 teams can take on the contract. That's a crappy auction where you've effectively barred dozens of prospective buyers at the door because you overpaid for the item you're auctioning and they can't afford the same cost. I just don't know why you seem to be dismissing the idea that having a wider group of teams to trade a player to is better than only 4 at the most that can take on the contract. You're cutting down on the likelihood of getting a truly worthwhile return. The 4 teams might now have prospects or players to spare that stack up with the trading team's wants/needs.

... You just presented a scenario where the contract has drastically narrowed the pool of teams you can deal with. And then said it's not a hindrance. No, of course it's not impossible you could still get a good deal from those 4 teams...but how is it not a bad thing that a contract has significantly cut into your ability to deal a player? You don't think those 4 teams know that and aren't going to swing their leverage knowing that the Cubs effectively HAVE to deal with one of them if they can only trade a player to 4 different teams without paying part of the contract? Basically you're talking an uphill battle if only 4 teams can or want to take on the contract you're trying to move.

Wait, what? What teams were reported being interested besides the Rangers? And how do you know they weren't looking at him with the hope of picking him up with the Cubs picking up part of the contract? You seem to be automatically conflating interest in a player with the desire/means to pay all of his salary.

You're just being difficult. There's obviously a continuum at work here, ranging from awful to about right to incredible bargain, which is what I was illustrating. Well, no, you weren't doing that. You were, yet again, assigning strict parameters that don't exist but are necessary for you to make your point. You're right, there is a fluctuating continuum, but it's fluctuating on a team by team basis based on needs and ability, not a flat market scale.

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!