davearm2
-
Posts
2,776 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by davearm2
-
August waiver deals
davearm2 replied to Post Count Padder's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Someone in the Jose Ceda mold doesn't sound that outrageous. Or maybe another Kyler Burke. Or even Chris Archer. Those guys all had plenty of upside. -
That's probably because Castro doesn't weakly ground out to second base (or shortstop, since he's a righty) every other at-bat like 4-3 did. A few folks seemed to get perverse pleasure from pointing out that Pierre led the NL in outs made when he was with the Cubs in '06. Guess who's leading this year.
-
Quit thinking you're the smartest guy in the room, and maybe you won't end up covered in [expletive] so much. :good:
-
To be fair, if you're a pitcher it's a helluva lot safer to pound the strikezone against the Cubs' lineup than the Yankees' or the Red Sox'.
-
You really gotta feel for guys like Cliff Lee, Teixeira, Crawford, Holliday, Soriano, etc. etc. The market for them was just so severely limited. Only maybe 4 teams could afford that kind of contract. If only all 30 teams jumped into the bidding, they'd be sitting pretty. And it's going to be a miserable offseason for Pujols too, I bet. He might have even fewer than 4 teams lined up to offer $250M+. He's screwed.
-
Unlike an auction, a baseball trade is unlikely to involve purely fungible assets. Each team has a different pool of talent from which to present players for trade. A prohibitive contract restricts a broad swath of that talent pool from discussion. Each team has a pool of talent they could draw from to construct an offer valued at (hypothetically) $100, $80, worth of talent etc. Sure the individual players will obviously differ, but the overall value (talent) can of course be made to be similar. That is to say, Jim Hendry might value team A's Smith and Jones roughly same as team B's Morris and Johnson. If a team isn't willing to put together an offer worth the talent-equivalent of $50 then it doesn't really matter what their pool is.
-
Correct. Think of it like an auction. If the most serious buyer is willing to bid $100, and the next three are willing to bid $80, $70, and $60, then it doesn't matter if there are 25 other buyers willing to bid between $0 and $50, or no other bidders at all. You seem fixated on getting a whole crapload of teams interested in bidding less than the market-clearing price. There's no point.
-
The Angels wouldn't trade Cron for Castro and Garza.
-
It does matter, though, since those are teams that won't contribute to the bidding process for Marmol's services. The more teams you can get in on the bidding, the higher the return you can get for that player. It's a hindrance, but how big a hindrance it is depends on how many teams are taken out of the bidding by the price tag. Nah. If, say, 25 teams are taken out of the bidding by the price tag, and 4 are left with serious interest, then the contract is not a hindrance.
-
You want the Cubs to make major decisions about the direction of the franchise based upon media frenzy? And you don't even agree with the frenzy, or think it's fair? Surely I'm missing something here.
-
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. That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter that all 29 other teams aren't interested. The market is set by the two or three or four teams *most* interested. Who cares if some team out there wouldn't want Marmol @ $20M? The Cubs aren't talking to them anyway. They're talking to the ones that would.
-
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.
-
I would question whether a team would rather trade for Marmol knowing he's an impending free agent, or trade for him with the cost certainty of 2 years and ~$17M left. A team wishing to keep him beyond this year would want the contract in place, I would think, since he's not going to sign for less than that.
-
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'll leave it to the assembled masses to determine which position is more reasonable. It's only a bad contract if no other team would take it? Come on. That's ridiculous. It's not ridiculous at all. A contract no other team would offer is bad (and detracts from trade value). If it's a contract a handful of teams would offer, then it's market rate (and neither adds to, nor detracts from trade value). If it's a contract many teams would offer, then it's a bargain (and adds to trade value). Marmol's deal is definitely not in the first category.
-
That's weak, even for you. Especially given the folks laughing were laughing at you. Which I suppose explains your urgency to move on.
-
I accept your concession.
-
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? Darn near every team in baseball has paid big $$$ for a closer, so that last point falls completely flat. Not that it was relevant in the first place. What the least interested buyer will or won't pay for something is completely meaningless. It's obviously the most interested buyers that set the market. So *you* wouldn't pay a reliever $20M. Great! So what?
-
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'll leave it to the assembled masses to determine which position is more reasonable.
-
So it's a bad contract by your standards, not by what-MLB-closers-get-paid standards. Got it. You can perhaps guess which one matters more when one GM calls up another GM to discuss a trade. Yes, there are lots of bad contract that are routinely given out around baseball out of desperation or an ungodly amount of money to spend (great job pointing out R. Soriano getting paid by THE [expletive] YANKEES as some kind of model). It doesn't mean it's a good idea for the Cubs to follow suit. I don't know why you're not getting this. Whether or not it was a good idea for the Cubs to hand out that contract to Marmol is irrelevant to the discussion of what his trade value is. So long as the contract is below-market (and it is), then it won't be an impediment to trading him (like you said it would be). In fact a below-market contract boosts his trade value. Harp on the year he's having if you wish, but the contract isn't hindering any trade efforts, is the bottom line.
-
So it's a bad contract by your standards, not by what-MLB-closers-get-paid standards. Got it. You can perhaps guess which one matters more when one GM calls up another GM to discuss a trade.
-
I can see already that this is another of your countless "it is true because I said so" arguments. Hard to argue against that "logic". Meanwhile Rafael Soriano signed for 3/$35, so I'll stand by my view that Marmol would get paid more than his current contract if he were a free agent.
-
Marmol doesn't have a bad contract. You can't get a lights-out closer for less than 3/$20 on the free agent market. Sure his performance this year has dropped his value some, but he'd still get that and more as a FA.
-
Everyone can be right here, you know. Pujols is very likely to continue to be a great to elite hitter for several more years. He is also very likely to be overpaid in his next contract, suffer age-related decline, represent an increased injury risk, etc. etc. In the end, it screams "paying through the nose for past production" to me, but the future production will still be worth a lot.
-
Who said that? I'm opposed to offering guys 25%+ more years and/or dollars than everyone else. Such as they did for Soriano. And such as folks apparently want to do for CJ Wilson.
-
Of course those elite free agents would have to choose the Cubs, too. It's not at all farfetched that they make a strong push for these guys, but come up empty. Then it's, "hello, Carlos Boozer".