Trade Carlos Marmol?
by Mmurton on Sep 3, 2010 1:29 PM CDT
Email
Print As the season comes to an end and we begin to start our annual off-season planning, I have an idea that hasn't been discussed too much: trade Carlos Marmol . When proposing this, I fully understand that our pen has been a major weakness this year and moving Marmol might seem counter-intuitive. There are several reasons why this move would make sense: he could bring back very good value in a deal given his track record and relative affordability,;he can probably be replaced either internally or cheaply through FA; his heavy workload over the last few years coupled with his reliance on the slider make him a continued injury risk:; and , most importantly, Marmol is likely to be an expensive, overused pitcher by the time the Cubs are legitimately competitive again.
Marmol would be a very attractive asset to a team that needs a closer but doesn't want to pay open-market,FA price, in terms of dollars and/or draft picks. As a second year arb guy, I'm guessing he is in line for a salary in the neighborhood of 4-5mil next season, which is very cheap for the type of performance that he delivers. Tampa Bay, who will lose Soriano, is one team that jumps to mind, given their limited budget and endless supply of good young talent. But the potential market certainly wouldn't be limited to them. People may ask why a bad team like the Cubs with a lot of bad, long-term deals would want to trade a young, cost-controlled talent like Marmol.Quite simply, you have to trade value to receive value and the Cubs don't have many attractive pieces to give up and plenty of needs(SP, lead-off man, young talent on the corners). Furthermore, Marmol will only be cheap for two more seasons- seasons that the Cubs are unlikely to be truly competitive.
Replacing Marmol, though no easy task, might not be as difficult as it appears. Andrew Cashner is a talent who many posters/readers, myself included, feel is best utilized in the starting rotation. The Cubs, for whatever reason, seem to feel he is best used, at least for the near-term, in the pen. That being the case, I don't think it is inconceivable that he evolves into a capable closer over the next season, despite some of the lumps that he has taken thus far. If the Cubs were to move Marmol, there is no way that they would enter next season with Cashner or Marshall as their closer. Don't fret; there are likely to be several cheap, veteran FAs(Wood, Putz, Dotel,Frasor, even Soriano) + non-tenders who could likely be signed at or below the annual salary that Marmol is likely to receive through arb. Creating a bullpen through cheap FAs, farmhands. Rule 5 guys, and non-tenders is a lot easier than Hendry makes it look.
With respect to the injury front, I realized that the nature of pitching-related arm injuries is difficult to predict but, let's face it, Marmol seems like a prime candidate. Over the last four seasons, he has thrown one heck of a lot of pitches and many, if not most, in high-leverage situations. If you couple the innings with the violent delivery and over-reliance on the slider, I think you see where I'm going. I'm no doctor and Marmol might continue, as he has, for several more seasons but we'd want to kick ourselves if he suffered a serious injury, just as his trade value was near its' peak.
Trading Marmol might seem like a crazy idea , given that he is one of only a couple of reliable guys in our pen. But when you look at the reasons that I've laid out, I think it is the bold but smart move. Hendry is not known for taking these types of risks but he needs to realize that he doesn't have much to offer teams when it comes to trade discussions. When it comes time for the Cubs to compete again, I think management will realize it is much easier to patch a bullpen than a starting rotation or everyday line-up.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
63 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i'm always in favor
of cashing in on an overvalued asset, which RP’s generally are. But I think most of the market (outside of Ed Wade) has figured out the perceived premium put on RP’s is a bit silly.
I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to moving Marmol, but I’d be hard pressed to think of teams that would wildly overpay and to be honest, I just can’t see the Cubs doing it.
I think its one thing to try to sell the fanbase on biding our time before spending big in FA again, but I think its another to deal off a home-grown young player who is under team control for 2 more years.
I’m not saying its a bad idea, just one that I think hasn’t been discussed much because most feel it’s unlikely the Cubs would consider it
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Sep 3, 2010 1:43 PM CDT reply actions
it all depends
on which team’s closer blows a big game in the playoffs…then someone like Marmol is worth his weight in gold
I Love Larry - Brick are you looking at random things around the room and saying that you love them - I Love Larry
Currently 34,839 on the Season Ticket Wait List - Expected age of being #0: 119
Tampa
I really think that a team like Tampa or even ATL might be interested. If TB was willing to pay Soriano-who had some question marks- 8mil? this year , I think they’d really like the idea of Marmol and his two years remaining to FA. In the case of TB, I think we’d be looking to tap into their major SP depth- might have to sweeten the pot to get a SP. ATL will be losing Wagner and are too good a team to want the risk of going into the season with an unproven closer.
As far as PR goes, I agree with DCB that it doesnt seem like the Cubs’ MO to move a guy like Marmol. However, the Cubs need to adopt the Kenny Williams approach of explaining the logic of their moves to fans. Whenever Williams makes a move that upsets the base, he will come out and explain his rationale and the fans, at this point, seem to trust him. Hendry doesn’t yet deserve that type of trust but it shouldn’t prevent him from making smart moves.
Atlanta
has several young arms they really like and they probably won’t spend too much on a closer. Marmol will likely get a good salary, so I’ve got a tough time seeing them go after him, but you never know.
Tampa is cutting costs, so I’m not sure they would go for it. They have young arms they can try as well.
I would be in favor of it
Especially if the Cubs have decided Cashner is a reliever. And I say this as someone who likes Marmol.
by JSB on Sep 3, 2010 2:12 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Agreed
I like Marmol quite a bit, myself. People have said Byrd is the guy to move because he is affordable to other teams and isnt part of the long-term future. I agree that Byrd should be moved but you’re gonna get more of a return for Carlos.
Kaseyi, are you gonna want to sign Marmol to a 3yr/30 mil deal after the 2012 season? Didn’t think so. Good closers are luxuries that bad teams can’t afford.
You know...
History seems to be repeating itself. These trade Marmol arguments sound a lot like what I was hearing back in the late 80’s about trading Lee Smith. Smith was traded because of course we didn’t really need a closer, so we get Gossage and then after that one flops, we have to trade Palmero away to get Mitch Williams. How about we keep the guys that are good, and build with them for once instead of creating more holes on the team.
See the Cubs 2010 schedule (now with game times & TV Schedule) at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2010.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
by kaseyi on Sep 3, 2010 2:16 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I think
Raffy playing the pickle tickle with a player’s wife had more to do with his departure….
"All I want is food and creative love" - Rusted Root
by TheRiot Police on Sep 3, 2010 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
If it wasn't raffy...
it would have been Grace that was moved. The point was that we needed a closer since Smith was gone and Gossage was a disaster so we had to pay big for Williams. The Cubs keep creating new holes to plug existing holes. Like I said earlier, lets try to keep what few good pieces we have and then develop (or sign as F.A’s) people to fill in the rest
See the Cubs 2010 schedule (now with game times & TV Schedule) at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2010.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
Trading Smith was a mistake.
Trading Rafael Pameiro, in my estimation, was not. Grace clearly out played Palmeiro, and it was truly either Grace or Palmeiro that would be moved for a closer. The story about Palmeiro is urban legend; as I remember it was conjecture at the time, and who is going to trade a bat like Palmeiro’s if they don’t have to? Because there was simply no place for him to play.
I have always believed that the Cubs made the right choice at the time, a tough choice. Thank goodness they did, or we all would not have experienced the subtle brilliance of Mark Grace…
I'm a truth teller, I'm a risk taker, I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line...
by Jimmyeatworld on Sep 10, 2010 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Revisionist history.
Palmeiro didn’t hit for power with the Cubs — in fact, he didn’t do so his first two years in Texas, either.
They definitely made a choice. Palmeiro wasn’t suited for left field; he had to be moved to 1B. Grace was already there, so the Cubs traded for something they needed. Smith was probably going to be traded after 1987 anyway — the issue wasn’t that so much as the deal made for him was terrible.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I spoke to Palmeiro...
…at an alumni baseball game shortly after the Cubs traded him. He was pissed he was traded, because he liked playing in Chicago, but he told me the Cubs told him if he hit with more power, they would have kept him.
The dude hit for power in college and I think he needed a few years in the bigs to get confidence in his power stroke. I don’t think the steriod thing happened until late in his career.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Rec'd
We will get the 2011 version of Al Nipper and Cal Schiraldi.
And, yeah, I would be in favor of a 3y/$30M contract after 2012 (two full seasons from now) if he holds form.
LaRussa is a dupe for Glenn Beck 8.28.10
All good things...
come to those who wait TJ!!!!
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes
Seems like people are confusing Rotisserie baseball with the genuine article.
This season has led to a lot of crazy ideas, but trading a guy who has potential to be an elite closer is among the craziest.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 3, 2010 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Potential?
Not if he never finds the plate.
With all due respect, let’s review:
Marmol is an elite closer in the making, despite recent history of incredible wildness. Sandberg is a bad manager, despite four years of success in the minors.
by Shanghai Badger on Sep 4, 2010 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions
makes total sense to me
a good closer is wild, and a bad manager wins games
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
A thousand thank yous
I will never understand some of these “trade ideasa”. Ever.
A quote from Lee Smith circa 2009- “I never did understand why the dumb sons a bitches got rid of me.”
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Smith had a horrendous 1987.
He was getting booed off the mound — he blew a ton of saves.
It’s not so much trading him, as who they got. The Cubs were offered Jeff Blauser and John Smoltz for Smith and Shawon Dunston. Guess they should have taken that one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Instead, the Cubs got Jeff Blauser
when he was a Cubs killer again, this time in Cubby Blue.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 4, 2010 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Not So Fast
He made his second All Star team that year and statistically his 1987 was really no different than several of his previous years with the team. He had more saves that year, 36, than any previous year, which was second in the league (Bedrosian led with 40). His WAR was 3.0 that year, second highest in his career. He was 29, right at the physical peak. He went on to make five more All Star teams, finish in the top five in Cy Young voting three times, got three Rolaids Relief awards, and finish in the top 25 in MVP voting four times in his career. Trading him was a dumb, stupid move.
Exactly how many saves did he blow?
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Smith had eleven (11) blown saves in 1987.
That’s a lot. He was particularly bad in September, posting an 8.10 ERA with a 1.80 WHIP.
It’s not so much the trade, as I said, it’s who the Cubs got for him. Jim Frey, then the GM, got almost nothing in return. Trading Smith and Dunston for Blauser and Smoltz would have been an outstandingly good deal for the Cubs. Instead they got Calvin Schiraldi and Al Nipper, neither of whom was with the Cubs three years later.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And because of the Smith for Nipper/Schiraldi trade
The Cubs went looking for a closer the next off-season an acquired Mitch “Wild Thing” Williams for some kid named Rafael Palmeiro.
I remember Nipper’s inflated spring ERA being blamed on the Arizona air….turns out it was the air everywhere.
"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman
by BucknerKongCardenal on Sep 6, 2010 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions
The idea of it makes a lot of sense...
He probably is at his peak value right now, and his style of pitching might be prone to injury, on that part I have to plead ignorance. You might be trading him at the peak time to do so and get the most value for him. Next year will not be that important a year to have a good closer as I doubt we will contend either way.
Having said all of that, I don’t share optimism that his performance this year at least will be easily replaced. It’s a crap shoot to sign someone new (see Gregg) and expect he will do just as well…especially when you would have to get additional value for him beyond the money you use to sign a free agent or what is really the point? I don’t think Cashner is even close to being ready to being a closer. He needs another pitch before he can be a good anything at this point. What it comes down to for me is, what is your realistic expectation of Marmol in the future? If mgmt determines he is likely to decline or get injured, then you make the move and hope you are right. Otherwise I don’t see it helping long term. Just my $.02
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 3, 2010 2:25 PM CDT reply actions
Depends on what you get
But first, I think the Cubs organization has to figure out if they really believe they have a shot at contending in the next 2 years, and I really don’t see that happening.
So my feeling, with injuries being what they are, if there’s someone in the minors that projects as a closer in 2013 and you can get something good for Marmol, then do it.
Not like the Cubs need someone to close out the 65 games a year or so they’ll be winning the next 2 years.
Catch 22
The same reasons we would move him (Closers are easily replaceable) would be the same reason another GM would not want to give away prime talent in a deal for him.At least theoretically. Not all GMs are created equal.
Re: Catch 22
It is his reasonable $ cost and his dominance that are attractive. We can afford to take a risk on a closer with some questions( coming off injury, relative inexperience). Good teams like NYY- if Rivera retires, TB, ATL, and perhaps BOS- may non-tender Papelbon- cannot take that risk.
by Mmurton on Sep 3, 2010 4:05 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
No!!
Marmol is one of a select few players who need to be considered untouchable, along with Castro, Marshall, and maybe Colvin, unless you’re able to come up with a steal for him. Here’s why:
The Cubs bullpen, for the most part this year has been terrible and must be rebuilt. However, you have a high quality closer (Marmol), who no one hits when he’s on, which is most of the time. And you have a high quality left-handed setup guy in Marshall. Every team that wins the World Series has a great closer, and a great back end of the bullpen. Not getting Matt Capps this past offseason really hurt the bullpen and it was obvious the Cubs had no backup plan when he signed with Washington. The bullpen needs to be built, but you have some good pieces that you can’t part with. I repeat: Do Not Let Carlos Marmol Get Away!! He has to be the closer of the future!! If they trade Marmol, who will close next year?
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
I'd love to see the Cubs actually try to sell high on someone for a change
I’m slightly skeptical that they could get very much for him though. The more he’s exposed the more he comes off as, at best, erratic.
As was already mentioned, closers are probably the most overvalued commodity in baseball.
They did sell high on someone
They sold high on Mark DeRosa.
You saw what people here thought of that.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 3, 2010 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions
You don't sell high just for the sake of selling high.
I understand what you’re saying, but Marmol is not the guy to do this with. Who will close next year if we don’t have Marmol? Here we have a potential born-in-the-organization superstar closer, and you’re suggesting that we trade him for the sole purpose of cashing in, just because we can. I guess I never say never, so I won’t say it here either, but unless Minnesota, Boston, Florida, or Atlanta offers their entire farm system for Marmol, then Carlos is my closer next year.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
Overvalued commodity?
Closers?? I think you would be hard pressed to find a single Major League GM who would agree with that statement. I would go so far as to say that it’s probably the one thing that you cannot win a world championship without. A good closer, and a deep bullpen.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, Jose Ascanio
The Cubs have sold high on occasion.
However, the Cubs are a big market team. They don’t need to worry about selling high. If they get good return on Marmol then fine, trade him but the constant obsession here about selling high makes no sense.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Wrong
Just because the Cubs are a big market team doesn’t mean they don’t need to maximize value. The obsession with selling high is the obsession with making the right moves. Simply saying that since we have money we can afford to make subpar moves is a bad attitude.
by neifiisgreat on Sep 4, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
By this logic
Shouldn’t Pujols have been traded by now?
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Not the same.
What player(s) could the Cardinals get back to improve their team for Pujols? There is no improvement over him at 1B. If they could get parts that would improve the team, relative to the team with Pujols, then yes it would be a good move.
Disagree
This selling high mantra really requires someone to know which young prospects are going to get better and which ones won’t. So please tell me which Cubs should be traded now at their highest value. Should the Cubs trade Castro?
The Cubs are a big market team. They should not have to be obsessed as some people apparently are about trading every young player at precisely the right time.
The only player I think they completely messed up value-wise is Pie. I never was a big Pie fan but Aaron Heilman? They would have done better keeping him and not signing Joey Gathright.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
I think that there is
a difference between “selling high” and “maximizing value”. This is why I wouldn’t trade Pujols unless it improved the team, the same as trading Marmol. I’m not saying trade players just for the sake of selling high, I’m saying that if a move can be made to improve the team, make it.
Then we agree
My original post said that I was fine with trading him if the return was good enough.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Agreed.
My problem with some of the players suggested for trades this year…Byrd, Castro, Marmol, etc. is that there isn’t a proposed trade made to judge, so essentially they are saying trade because you can. If there’s a legitimate offer made that is benefitting the team long term, of course you should look at it. But not simply because they have value.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 6, 2010 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not a dumb idea
But considering we have no one else in the wings to take Marmol’s place, it’s not a great idea either. We’re trying to rebuild and being set at the closer spot for a few more years is a good thing.
RIP Ronnie James Dio (July 10, 1942 - May 16, 2010).
Free BLou
Teams...
…would line up for Marmol.
The question is, who would we get in return, and who would take Marmol’s place on ours?
If the answer to both those questions were good ones, i’d be fine with trading Marmol.
Good teams evaluate the value of all players.
And the Cubs certainly should do that with Marmol.
The answer to the question “should they trade Marmol” is rather easily answered with another question: What is the return?? If the Cubs can get three VERY good prospects and/or two young ML ready talents, then you give it strong consideration.
But let’s look at some of the other “issues” in this thread.
1) Putting a bullpen together is actually very difficult because relievers are so unpredictable. Everyone gets on Hendry for not getting a FA reliever in the off-season. Well… go back and look at what was available. Who would you want? (Other than Capps, who chose to be a closer rather than a set-up guy.)
2) Good closers are NOT overvalued, but they do have a shelf-life. The Cubs tried getting a run-of-the-mill closer in Gregg. How’d that work? Check out Boston. They tried the moneyball match-up approach and it fizzled quickly. That said, they are now overpaying Papelbon. A big part of the issue is that we compare every closer to Mariano Rivera, which isn’t really fair.
3) While I like the idea of the GM explaining himself (or potentially herself), the simple fact is the largest majority of Cub fans will NOT continue to be paying customers while the team rebuilds. That puts the Cubs in a tough spot… you either have to spend to try and compete or really pare back the payroll in the short-term while ALSO cutting ticket prices.
4) The idea of “selling high” on Marmol is laced with 20/20 hindsight. You can’t know when Marmol is really at peak value. While there are some characteristics that suggest he may be as good as he’ll be (control issues, reliance on one pitch, choppy mechanics, possible injury risk) isn’t the opposite just as possible? What’s to say a young pitcher like Marmol finds a little something in his mechanics (it is a lack of consistency with his stride, IMO) that allows him to master his deliver and become truly dominant? If the Cubs traded Marmol for prospects and then signed a modern day Mel Rojas, the team brass would be skewered for not learning from past mistakes.
At this point, I would hang on to Marmol for at least one more year unless somebody absolutely knocked me over with an offer.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
You also have to consider potential replacements for him.
There is no one else in the entire organization who I would trust to close the door of the Men’s room, much less an important game with the tying run in scoring position. It would be different if the Cubs had a top prospect who had been a lights-out closer in college and minor leagues who they could call up and get a look at in September. They don’t. Therefore, by trading Marmol, you might get some great prospects or veterans who can hit, or give you quality starts, or provide good middle relief. But if you’re pissing away games in the 8th and 9th inning with regularity, what good did the trade do you?
There is nothing more frustrating than a team who has all pieces in place except a good closer. In my lifetime, the 1991 Cubs are the classic example of this. With a good closer, that team could have been a serious contender, but they just could not get three outs in the ninth inning that year.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
My point is that the Cubs are unlikely to be very good the next couple of seasons and , given their significant holes, shouldn’t be terribly worried about who will close games next year. They should be more concerned about who their #1 & 2 starters and middle-of-the-lineup bats are going to be. As JSB pointed iutnin his recent post, the Cubs farm system, despite much fanfare lately, doesn’t have any obvious answers to those questions. Castro seems like the only player who is a near-lock to be an All-Star caliber player. Given that reality, the Cubs should be trying to acquire some young talent with upside. In order to acquire that type of talent, the Cubs are going to have to give up something of value. I think that when the time comes that Ricketts will be willing to spend on FAs. But, until then, the Cubs need to develop the core of a good team. Currently , they don’t have all the pieces for that and need to parlay some of their assets into young talent that might have big roles on the next Cubs contender.
by Mmurton on Sep 3, 2010 9:00 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
No
They need to keep as many good young players as they can. Marmol is one. Because a big-market team, particularly this one, can’t afford to take off a season.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 4, 2010 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions
I would rather trade Soto than Marmol
I think his value is similar and the internal options could replace him with about 75% effectiveness. The thing is, for hitters, you just move them down in the order. If you get a closer who’s only 75% as good as Marmol, you have to find another closer.
To be clear, what I’m saying is that between Castillo, Chirinos, Robinson, Clevenger, and Hill, I think you could get Geo’s defense and about 75% of his offensive contribution.
That said, I’d rather the Cubs include Castillo in a deal with Byrd and Wells to get a good starter or slugger, and keep both Marmol and Soto.
Somebody take Aramis' bat off the restricted list, please.
I can't see any catchers in the Cubs' minors system
that would produce offensively at the major league level to what I would want on the team. Certainly Hill hasn’t. Good offensive catchers are fairly rare in the league to begin with. Before I am willing to trade Geo away I’d want to see more than “decent” numbers at the minors level. Trading a player should be done more for a trade benefitting the team long term than just to make a move or get prospects.
I realize you are not advocating trading him, but I just don’t agree with your assessment of his ability to be replaced from the minors.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 3, 2010 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I would rather trade Soto than Marmol
i…
no
just no
by jesus christos on Sep 3, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You do realize
that Soto is not only our best offensive player, but the best offensive catcher in baseball this season per wOBA?
by Bradsbeard on Sep 4, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
For a decent return, yes.
He still hasn’t learned control. He isn’t that effective of a reliever. If the team were better his issues would be magnified. The strikeouts overshadow the walks. A decent closer can be found if solid value comes in return for Marmol.
Trading Marmol might make sense on some levels
But without him this year we might all be talking about who the Cubs will pick with the first selection in the 2011 draft.
Marmol, Soto, Dempster and Byrd all fall into the category of players on the Cubs who probably have the most trade value, but generally few fans want to see traded. But if the Cubs wish to acquire some piece or pieces for the future, one or more of them might need to be traded. I assume Dempster has a no-tade clause, so I doubt it will be him. While it might seem bad to trade any of those guys for various reasons, trading one out of the four might not be a bad strategy….as long as we get Smoltz in return and not Shiraldi.
"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman
by BucknerKongCardenal on Sep 6, 2010 10:56 PM CDT reply actions
Am I getting Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen?
I would not trade Marmol unless I was filling a key gap for the Cubs. Wow, I left myself a lot of room there…
And when is Marmol’s trade value the highest? Off-season? Maybe to the Yankees or Red Sox who plan to contend every year. Or is it mid-year when a team sees Marmol as the piece that puts them over the top?
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
Completely depends on what he can land us.
Thing is, I think he could get us a really nice prospect from a contender.
Ok first off...
When was the last time we could say we had a pretty damned solid closer around here?
Tonight Marmol chalked up his 30th save of the year and might make 35 saves…
…
…
…
and now people wanna trade him…???
Ramirez, Fukudome, Soriano and Zambrano. It's the 2010 Murderers' Row of baseball failure. - Paraphrasing Gene Wojciechowski
Add to this the idea that trading someone for prospects during a season
means we have just as good a shot at signing him for the next year as everyone else. When you trade someone you are not likely to get him back anytime soon. So those prospects better be worth giving up the player on your roster for the next year and expect you aren’t going to compete. It just doesn’t often happen that you deal away a player to a “contender” and that traded player sees the larger picture and is happy to come back to you soon.
Starlin Castro singles on a pop up to catcher Jason LaRue.
Ryan Theriot scores. Two out -Gameday 7/23/10
by Sandberg's evil twin on Sep 13, 2010 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
