Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:19 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Chicago Cubs right-hander Ryan Dempster does not want to be traded to the Atlanta Braves, according to major-league sources.
At least not right now.
Dempster, as a player with 10 years of major-league service, the last five with the same team, has the right to block a trade to the Braves.
The pitcher instead wants to be sent to the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were unable to reach agreement with the Cubs on a suitable deal, sources said.
Dempster, 35, had indicated that the Dodgers were his first choice and the Braves were his second.
Setting aside that "at least not right now" is meaningless unless his feelings change hour to hour --
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers? Assuming there's not much a chance in hell Dempster passes through waivers - the Cubs probably could just save themselves 6-7 million and Alexi Rios him. If Thed wanted to be an evil shite, they could explain to Ryan that if it ain't Atlanta, the roll of the waiver dice will determine his new home come August 1. Does he like Pittsburgh? Oakland? New York? Because it seems to me - he's not getting past any of those teams (among plenty others) if the Cubs just put him on waivers.
Now... I'm not saying that I'd do that - I would expect Dempster to be compensation eligible - so I guess I'd just take a sandwich pick, but I think that I would certainly threaten it.
I get his reasoning, but it kinda sucks for the Cubs, since that was looking like quite the nifty trade as far as their future is concerned.
3.Cabbage posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:23 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I think its fine for players to use their no-trade clauses or 5-10 rights. I'm sure I'd consider it if I was in their shoes. The clubs and players have a deal, and fans ought to respect that the players gave up some amount of compensation for these rights. The contactual right to not have live out of a suitcase for three months is valuable.
But what it looks like here is that Ryan told the Cubs a trade to Atlanta would be ok, and now he's pissed because there was a leak and the clubs didn't properly come before him in supplication. Unless this is just some tactic where he's trying to get a multi-year offer out of Atlanta before agreeing to a trade, it seems very petty.
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers? Assuming there's not much a chance in hell Dempster passes through waivers - the Cubs probably could just save themselves 6-7 million and Alexi Rios him. If Thed wanted to be an evil shite, they could explain to Ryan that if it ain't Atlanta, the roll of the waiver dice will determine his new home come August 1. Does he like Pittsburgh? Oakland? New York? Because it seems to me - he's not getting past any of those teams (among plenty others) if the Cubs just put him on waivers.
I think if they simply waive him, that's fine but I don't think they are allowed to get anything out of the deal. So if he just gets waived and claimed, that's fine. If he passes through waivers and then the Cubs engineer a deal at that point or they make a deal with a team that claims him on waivers, he would have the right to refuse it.
Given that presumably the Dodgers' offer is better than nothing at all the "evil Theo" plan probably would not make sense. Theo's got 7 days to get the Dodgers to up their offer or to get the Braves to McGriff him and give him a bunch of money to change his mind.
So it sounds like he clearly prefers the Dodgers and is holding out, hoping that the Cubs can arrange a deal with L.A. that they're willing to do, but that he hasn't completely ruled out accepting a trade to Atlanta either. Since there's still a full week to go to the deadline, this could go on for a little while longer.
He's sure to be welcomed with open arms by the fans of Atlanta if and when he finally agrees to the arduous hardship of having to play for them.
It's like the kids at my college who, first day they got there, said "the only reason I'm HERE is because I didn't get into Princeton." Oh, how nice for you!
9.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Zonk-that is a very, very smart idea, and for a team going nowhere this year (the Cubs), not a bad bluff (or move, if it is not a bluff); the loss of a sandwich pick vs. not having his salary for 1/3rd of a year? It is not clear to me which is more valuable to them.
It's not just "evil" - it's stupid, shortsighted, and pointless. You treat your players more poorly than other clubs do, and you're going to lose your current stars and at best have to pay a premium to get stars to play for you.
11.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Dempster says today --
Ryan Dempster told reporters Tuesday that he will take "much of the next week" to decide on a potential trade.
Great... because I'm sure Atlanta, given the increasingly iffy nature of their rotation, isn't going to move on to a plan B.
Despite my hyperbole on the other thread, I get that Dempster has a fairly negotiated right to veto a trade... and perhaps I might do the same in his shoes.
But at this point, if I were Thed, I might find a way to diplomatically (and I don't know how you do that, but hey -- Theo's the one with a shiny harvard MBA) let Dempster know that he's going to be somewhere else come August 4th. He can go to Atlanta now, or, we're going to pocket 6 million and just put him on waivers, letting the process fall where it will.
12.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:38 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
It's not just "evil" - it's stupid, shortsighted, and pointless. You treat your players more poorly than other clubs do, and you're going to lose your current stars and at best have to pay a premium to get stars to play for you.
Then, if I were a player, I might suggest to my MLBPA rep that the next CBA ought to include waiver exclusions under 10/5.
I'm not on 'ownership's' side here - but I am on the front office's side.... and Dempster has already expressed a willingness to go to a contender. If Rosenthal's reporting is accurate, the Braves were -- at least formerly -- his second choice.
I hate taking management's side on virtually anything -- but this is still a business, and I don't think Dempster gave the Cubs a hometown discount.
Is there nothing of value that 6 million dollars buys the team? Apparently, the Ricketts are desperate for some Chicago assistance in Wrigley improvements.... How far does 6 million go in that regard?
Ryan Dempster told reporters Tuesday that he will take "much of the next week" to decide on a potential trade.
I think this has to be at least somewhat resolved by the time Dempster's scheduled to start next (which somebody said is tomorrow?). Before then, there's absolutely no rush anyway, but when push comes to shove, do the Cubs start him tomorrow or try to give him another day or two if they can (although with Garza day-to-day, I don't know that they can)? And even if he doesn't hurt himself in his next start as a Cub, that's one fewer start he'll be available to either the Braves or Dodgers which could lower his value (albeit fairly slightly).
That said, this whole episode is what's wrong with journalism in the Twitter era and leaves a sour taste in my mouth for everybody who's been "reporting" and speculating and what-not (including myself).
14.SG posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:40 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
He's sure to be welcomed with open arms by the fans of Atlanta if and when he finally agrees to the arduous hardship of having to play for them.
Eh, if he pitches ok it will all be forgiven. Yankee fans seems to have gotten over Hiroki Kuroda rejecting a trade to the Bronx last year.
At this point Ryan Dempster is welcome to go eat a bag of dicks, really. Jesus. What a primadonna.
16.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Eh, if he pitches ok it will all be forgiven. Yankee fans seems to have gotten over Hiroki Kuroda rejecting a trade to the Bronx last year.
Carl Crawford and John Lackey didn't let the BoSox multiple musings on just letting Manny go via a waiver claim influence their decision to sign with Boston. Francisco Cordero didn't let the Jays letting the White Sox have Rios for the price of his contract impact his decision to sign with the Jays.
Come to think of it, I'm liking this idea if you can PROMISE it will impact FA decisions to sign with the Cubs!
17.Brian C posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
But at this point, if I were Thed, I might find a way to diplomatically (and I don't know how you do that, but hey -- Theo's the one with a shiny harvard MBA) let Dempster know that he's going to be somewhere else come August 4th. He can go to Atlanta now, or, we're going to pocket 6 million and just put him on waivers, letting the process fall where it will.
This is a plan that I would expect from the worst GM in the game. Let's see, we'll publically humiliate a long-term, well-liked, high-performing veteran, with a sick kid no less, and in return we get ... what exactly? A public demonstration that they're not to be ###### with during the late-July deadline period? Gee, it's like there's no downside!
18.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
It's not just "evil" - it's stupid, shortsighted, and pointless. You treat your players more poorly than other clubs do, and you're going to lose your current stars and at best have to pay a premium to get stars to play for you.
Is there any evidence of that? What MLB teams have a reputation of treating players badly, and thus have to pay more to acquire them? What MLB teams treat their players well, and thus get players to sign for less or equal amounts?
I thought the Cardinals treated Pujols like royalty, and he rewarded them by taking a higher offer. There is nothing wrong with Pujols doing that, but it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the dollars offered will be determinative.
If there is an exception, it would be players' desire to get to media-friendly high exposure cities, but I cannot even back that up, for MLB.
Is there nothing of value that 6 million dollars buys the team? Apparently, the Ricketts are desperate for some Chicago assistance in Wrigley improvements.... How far does 6 million go in that regard?
You're likely to get more than $6M worth of whatever back in trade from the Dodgers, even if their package isn't as good as Atlanta's. That's why it's stupid and counterproductive.
20.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Is there any evidence of that? What MLB teams have a reputation of treating players badly, and thus have to pay more to acquire them? What MLB teams treat their players well, and thus get players to sign for less or equal amounts?
I thought the Cardinals treated Pujols like royalty, and he rewarded them by taking a higher offer. There is nothing wrong with Pujols doing that, but it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the dollars offered will be determinative.
If there is an exception, it would be players' desire to get to media-friendly high exposure cities, but I cannot even back that up, for MLB.
Like I said - Boston all but publicly threatened this with Manny on several occasions before he was ultimately dealt. Didn't impact Crawford or Lackey's decision to sign with them!
What MLB teams have a reputation of treating players badly, and thus have to pay more to acquire them?
The Pirates had a terrible reputation for the way they treated players during the Littlefield era, and as a result had trouble getting even garden-variety minor league free agents to sign with the franchise.
23.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:48 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
20+ losing seasons in a row (or whatever it is; sorry, Pirate fans, and you get to break the streak this year, any way) must have something to do with that, too.
24.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:49 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Sigh...
Maybe I owe McCoy an apology... if we still had Big Z, maybe Zambrano could set Dempster's locker on fire or something.... so the fiery Venezuelan actually had some uses after all!
20+ losing seasons in a row (or whatever it is; sorry, Pirate fans, and you get to break the streak this year, any way) must have something to do with that, too.
Like I said - Boston all but publicly threatened this with Manny on several occasions before he was ultimately dealt. Didn't impact Crawford or Lackey's decision to sign with them!
That's because Manny was regarded as a jackass who'd earned that sort of treatment, a rep that Dempster doesn't have.
20+ losing seasons in a row (or whatever it is; sorry, Pirate fans, and you get to break the streak this year, any way) must have something to do with that, too.
Actually, minor league FAs usually WANT to sign with losing teams, since losing teams have less talent separating the minor league FAs from the majors than good teams would.
30.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:54 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
The former Cub regime all but ran Sammy Sosa out of town - and even before that, dangled the heck out of him before signing him to the last extension. Didn't stop Soriano from coming here.
Milton Bradley got run out of town, didn't stop DeJesus from signing here.
Carlos Silva was pissed about being released last spring - didn't stop Maholm from pitching here.
Hey - look - I'm not saying I'd do it... and if they did do it, it's like the FO needs to tweet "HAHAHAHAHA FU, RD!" when he ends up in Atlanta anyway... or Baltimore... or wherever. They can simply say "this was a very tough business decision. We wish Ryan well with his new club and hope that he can win a ring this year with them."
31.Brian C posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:55 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Is there nothing of value that 6 million dollars buys the team? Apparently, the Ricketts are desperate for some Chicago assistance in Wrigley improvements.... How far does 6 million go in that regard?
This (probably intentionally) completely misunderstands the Cubs' motives. They don't give a #### about the $6 million - they're not trading him away because of his salary, and at any rate he's performing to his salary level anyway. They're trading him away because of the return he'll bring in a trade.
Dumping him on waivers gives them nothing in that regard. It would be a pointless act, in addition to being petty and spiteful.
32.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:56 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
20+ losing seasons in a row (or whatever it is; sorry, Pirate fans, and you get to break the streak this year, any way) must have something to do with that, too.
You've got your cause and effect backwards there.
No; these are the Gil Meche/Jose Guillen type signings that have served the Royals so well.
33.AROM posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:56 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers? Assuming there's not much a chance in hell Dempster passes through waivers - the Cubs probably could just save themselves 6-7 million and Alexi Rios him. If Thed wanted to be an evil shite, they could explain to Ryan that if it ain't Atlanta, the roll of the waiver dice will determine his new home come August 1. Does he like Pittsburgh? Oakland? New York? Because it seems to me - he's not getting past any of those teams (among plenty others) if the Cubs just put him on waivers.
That's not the way smart people run a ballclub. If you send him off on waivers, not only do you not get whatever prospects the Braves/Dodgers/whoever are offering, you don't get the backup plan prospects either - draft pick compensation.
34.Brian C posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:58 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Carlos Silva was pissed about being released last spring - didn't stop Maholm from pitching here.
Now you're really reaching, to the point where I think it's fair to say that you're being willfully disingenuous. As if every team doesn't have someone who's upset about being released.
35.boteman posted on July 24, 2012 at 04:59 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Dumping him on waivers gives them nothing in that regard.
I thought that a team claiming a player off waivers claims the right to negotiate with the player's team to acquire him. He does not automatically go to the team for free. I'm not sure if any of this changed with the most recent C.B.A., but it's worth reviewing the process considering that it's late July. I know I'm not clear on it. [ Edit: yous guys typed faster than I did, but I think it's still interesting to discuss the waiver wire process. ]
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers?
A no-trade clause can be used to override a waiver claim, and 10/5 rights are senior to a no-trade. Dempster appears to be holding all the cards here.
37.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:00 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
That's because Manny was regarded as a jackass who'd earned that sort of treatment, a rep that Dempster doesn't have.
OK - I think it would be fair to say that Dave Winfield was pretty well liked and respected, no?
George Steinbrenner did one hell of a lot worse -- and more, and more often -- spiteful things to Winfield anything any other team has done to any player in my memory (at least, since Curt Flood).
Did the Yankees ever experience any blowback from this in their pursuit of free agents?
38.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:01 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
It would be a pointless act,
It would be a negative act for now; the question is the future ramifications. It is kind of like when Boras let J. D. Drew go play in an independant league rather than sign with a certain MLB club. It showed the rest of the league for the rest of Boras's career that he will shoot the hostage, if that is what it takes, and not to F*** with Boras. In this case, the next time that a player wanted to exercise his proper and lawful rights, when Theo reminded him that Theo could then exercise his proper and lawful rights, leaving both player and team worse off, the player would know that Theo would pull the trigger, and the player would relent.
39.Brian C posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:01 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I thought that a team claiming a player off waivers claims the right to negotiate with the player's team to acquire him. He does not automatically go to the team for free. I'm not sure if any of this changed with the most recent C.B.A., but it's worth reviewing the process considering that it's late July. I know I'm not clear on it.
zonk stipulated (or at least heavily implied) that the Cubs would release him for the cost of his salary.
40.TVerik posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:05 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Yankee fans seems to have gotten over Hiroki Kuroda rejecting a trade to the Bronx last year.
He did? That diabolical...
41.Brian C posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:07 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
It would be a negative act for now; the question is the future ramifications. It is kind of like when Boras let J. D. Drew go play in an independant league rather than sign with a certain MLB club. It showed the rest of the league for the rest of Boras's career that he will shoot the hostage, if that is what it takes, and not to F*** with Boras. In this case, the next time that a player wanted to exercise his proper and lawful rights, when Theo reminded him that Theo could then exercise his proper and lawful rights, leaving both player and team worse off, the player would know that Theo would pull the trigger, and the player would relent
Charles Pierce wrote yesterday that "always and forever, baseball management will mourn the death of the reserve clause." Apparently this is true of some fans as well.
In any case, your argument seems moot. It's far from clear that the Cubs are better off with their don't-####-with-us attitude than they are just letting Dempster pitch, if it came to that; the benefits you outline are extremely tentative and could easily backfire. And it doesn't appear that waivers work that way anyway for 10/5 guys, so it's a stupid plan as well as a particularly douchey one.
But other than that, good thinking, guys.
42.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:08 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
zonk stipulated (or at least heavily implied) that the Cubs would release him for the cost of his salary.
Yeah - 38 nails it... It's a reverse Boras. We don't want to shoot the hostage, but it's a threat that ought to at least be soft sold. Just like Boras in the Drew negotiations, we hope it doesn't come to that -- but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Hell - for that matter - if LA is the only team that Dempster will "accept" a trade to, perhaps this also gooses the Dodgers a bit... if Dempster becomes available in a week for anyone who's willing to shell out 6 million, then perhaps they get a bit concerned that a competitor gets to him first. Dempster has experience closing -- and last I checked, the Giants have some issues at the back end of their bullpen.
As I recall, the CBA states that a player with 5 & 10 rights cannot be DFA'd unless the league office has been given evidence that the player has agreed.
45.bfan posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
If the plan does not work because a 10/5 player cannot be sent through waivers, then yes, the plan does not work.
But the equation of having a pissed off ("you just tried to trade me") veteran on your roster earning another $5 million to pitch for 54 games that will decide whether your team finishes in 5th place or 4th place, and whom you have no interest in signing after the year (all of which fits this Cubs situation), vs. just putting the guy on waivers, and saving the $5 million, seems to be a pretty close one, to me. Yes, the Cubs would be better if they could get rid of the $5 million salary burden and get Randall Delgado, but that may not be an option that they have.
46.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Charles Pierce wrote yesterday that "always and forever, baseball management will mourn the death of the reserve clause." Apparently this is true of some fans as well.
In any case, your argument seems moot. It's far from clear that the Cubs are better off with their don't-####-with-us attitude than they are just letting Dempster pitch, if it came to that; the benefits you outline are extremely tentative and could easily backfire. And it doesn't appear that waivers work that way anyway for 10/5 guys, so it's a stupid plan as well as a particularly douchey one.
But other than that, good thinking, guys.
First of all - it was MY plan! Not a collective plan.
Second of all, from what I can tell in the CBA -- the 10/5 would only apply if a trade were to be put together... Near as I can tell - and I'm far from certain - the Cubs could just do the screw job and get nothing back (except save 6 million). They just probably don't have any leverage to work out a deal.
Finally, I still come back to 38 -- Scott Boras is VERY good at his job. To some extent, it probably did cost him clients and there are also some teams that supposedly, will not negotiate with him... but he still gets clients and he still gets them really big contracts.
Nothing wrong with showing men of will exactly what will is -- Kaizer Sose taught me that.
47.zonk posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:14 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Did the Yankees ever experience any blowback from this in their pursuit of free agents?
I have no idea - I was like ten years old back then.
Wasn't that around the time teams were colluding to hold down FA salaries?
They were -- but still signed the immortal Ed Whitson!
We don't want to shoot the hostage, but it's a threat that ought to at least be soft sold.
You're threatening to do something that cuts directly against the team's best interest. Not much of a threat. No player is going to believe a threat like that, even if it's true.
"Selling" an idea like that only underlines your lack of leverage.
Dempster has experience closing -- and last I checked, the Giants have some issues at the back end of their bullpen.
LOL. That is all.
49.Shock posted on July 24, 2012 at 05:20 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I see no reason why 10/5 wouldn't apply to waivers. Sif he gets claimed you can pull him back and work out a trade, but he can veto tthe trade and at that case you're stuck with him.
Second of all, from what I can tell in the CBA -- the 10/5 would only apply if a trade were to be put together... Near as I can tell - and I'm far from certain - the Cubs could just do the screw job and get nothing back (except save 6 million). They just probably don't have any leverage to work out a deal.
As I understand things, "trade" is mostly an informal word in MLB rather than an official one. I believe the formal word for all trades, waiver claims, etc., is "transferred," and when it comes to no-trade clauses and 10/5 rights, there's no difference between a trade and a waiver claim. Both are "transfers" that can be blocked by the player.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >Setting aside that "at least not right now" is meaningless unless his feelings change hour to hour --
Am I correct that a player's 10/5 rights have no bearing on waivers? Assuming there's not much a chance in hell Dempster passes through waivers - the Cubs probably could just save themselves 6-7 million and Alexi Rios him. If Thed wanted to be an evil shite, they could explain to Ryan that if it ain't Atlanta, the roll of the waiver dice will determine his new home come August 1. Does he like Pittsburgh? Oakland? New York? Because it seems to me - he's not getting past any of those teams (among plenty others) if the Cubs just put him on waivers.
Now... I'm not saying that I'd do that - I would expect Dempster to be compensation eligible - so I guess I'd just take a sandwich pick, but I think that I would certainly threaten it.
But what it looks like here is that Ryan told the Cubs a trade to Atlanta would be ok, and now he's pissed because there was a leak and the clubs didn't properly come before him in supplication. Unless this is just some tactic where he's trying to get a multi-year offer out of Atlanta before agreeing to a trade, it seems very petty.
[Edit: grammar]
I think if they simply waive him, that's fine but I don't think they are allowed to get anything out of the deal. So if he just gets waived and claimed, that's fine. If he passes through waivers and then the Cubs engineer a deal at that point or they make a deal with a team that claims him on waivers, he would have the right to refuse it.
Given that presumably the Dodgers' offer is better than nothing at all the "evil Theo" plan probably would not make sense. Theo's got 7 days to get the Dodgers to up their offer or to get the Braves to McGriff him and give him a bunch of money to change his mind.
Dempster hasn't rejected it yet.
Jayson Stark is saying that there should be a resolution soon.
It's like the kids at my college who, first day they got there, said "the only reason I'm HERE is because I didn't get into Princeton." Oh, how nice for you!
Ryan Dempster told reporters Tuesday that he will take "much of the next week" to decide on a potential trade.
Great... because I'm sure Atlanta, given the increasingly iffy nature of their rotation, isn't going to move on to a plan B.
Despite my hyperbole on the other thread, I get that Dempster has a fairly negotiated right to veto a trade... and perhaps I might do the same in his shoes.
But at this point, if I were Thed, I might find a way to diplomatically (and I don't know how you do that, but hey -- Theo's the one with a shiny harvard MBA) let Dempster know that he's going to be somewhere else come August 4th. He can go to Atlanta now, or, we're going to pocket 6 million and just put him on waivers, letting the process fall where it will.
Then, if I were a player, I might suggest to my MLBPA rep that the next CBA ought to include waiver exclusions under 10/5.
I'm not on 'ownership's' side here - but I am on the front office's side.... and Dempster has already expressed a willingness to go to a contender. If Rosenthal's reporting is accurate, the Braves were -- at least formerly -- his second choice.
I hate taking management's side on virtually anything -- but this is still a business, and I don't think Dempster gave the Cubs a hometown discount.
Is there nothing of value that 6 million dollars buys the team? Apparently, the Ricketts are desperate for some Chicago assistance in Wrigley improvements.... How far does 6 million go in that regard?
I think this has to be at least somewhat resolved by the time Dempster's scheduled to start next (which somebody said is tomorrow?). Before then, there's absolutely no rush anyway, but when push comes to shove, do the Cubs start him tomorrow or try to give him another day or two if they can (although with Garza day-to-day, I don't know that they can)? And even if he doesn't hurt himself in his next start as a Cub, that's one fewer start he'll be available to either the Braves or Dodgers which could lower his value (albeit fairly slightly).
That said, this whole episode is what's wrong with journalism in the Twitter era and leaves a sour taste in my mouth for everybody who's been "reporting" and speculating and what-not (including myself).
Eh, if he pitches ok it will all be forgiven. Yankee fans seems to have gotten over Hiroki Kuroda rejecting a trade to the Bronx last year.
Carl Crawford and John Lackey didn't let the BoSox multiple musings on just letting Manny go via a waiver claim influence their decision to sign with Boston. Francisco Cordero didn't let the Jays letting the White Sox have Rios for the price of his contract impact his decision to sign with the Jays.
Come to think of it, I'm liking this idea if you can PROMISE it will impact FA decisions to sign with the Cubs!
This is a plan that I would expect from the worst GM in the game. Let's see, we'll publically humiliate a long-term, well-liked, high-performing veteran, with a sick kid no less, and in return we get ... what exactly? A public demonstration that they're not to be ###### with during the late-July deadline period? Gee, it's like there's no downside!
Is there any evidence of that? What MLB teams have a reputation of treating players badly, and thus have to pay more to acquire them? What MLB teams treat their players well, and thus get players to sign for less or equal amounts?
I thought the Cardinals treated Pujols like royalty, and he rewarded them by taking a higher offer. There is nothing wrong with Pujols doing that, but it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that the dollars offered will be determinative.
If there is an exception, it would be players' desire to get to media-friendly high exposure cities, but I cannot even back that up, for MLB.
You're likely to get more than $6M worth of whatever back in trade from the Dodgers, even if their package isn't as good as Atlanta's. That's why it's stupid and counterproductive.
Like I said - Boston all but publicly threatened this with Manny on several occasions before he was ultimately dealt. Didn't impact Crawford or Lackey's decision to sign with them!
A whole bag of 'em? Are they in a plastic bag all mushed together like chicken parts, or are they upright in a paper bag like baguettes?
The Pirates had a terrible reputation for the way they treated players during the Littlefield era, and as a result had trouble getting even garden-variety minor league free agents to sign with the franchise.
Maybe I owe McCoy an apology... if we still had Big Z, maybe Zambrano could set Dempster's locker on fire or something.... so the fiery Venezuelan actually had some uses after all!
You've got your cause and effect backwards there.
That's because Manny was regarded as a jackass who'd earned that sort of treatment, a rep that Dempster doesn't have.
Awww, you poor widdle thing. Someone get a binky for baby Sammy!
Actually, minor league FAs usually WANT to sign with losing teams, since losing teams have less talent separating the minor league FAs from the majors than good teams would.
Milton Bradley got run out of town, didn't stop DeJesus from signing here.
Carlos Silva was pissed about being released last spring - didn't stop Maholm from pitching here.
Hey - look - I'm not saying I'd do it... and if they did do it, it's like the FO needs to tweet "HAHAHAHAHA FU, RD!" when he ends up in Atlanta anyway... or Baltimore... or wherever. They can simply say "this was a very tough business decision. We wish Ryan well with his new club and hope that he can win a ring this year with them."
This (probably intentionally) completely misunderstands the Cubs' motives. They don't give a #### about the $6 million - they're not trading him away because of his salary, and at any rate he's performing to his salary level anyway. They're trading him away because of the return he'll bring in a trade.
Dumping him on waivers gives them nothing in that regard. It would be a pointless act, in addition to being petty and spiteful.
No; these are the Gil Meche/Jose Guillen type signings that have served the Royals so well.
That's not the way smart people run a ballclub. If you send him off on waivers, not only do you not get whatever prospects the Braves/Dodgers/whoever are offering, you don't get the backup plan prospects either - draft pick compensation.
Now you're really reaching, to the point where I think it's fair to say that you're being willfully disingenuous. As if every team doesn't have someone who's upset about being released.
I thought that a team claiming a player off waivers claims the right to negotiate with the player's team to acquire him. He does not automatically go to the team for free. I'm not sure if any of this changed with the most recent C.B.A., but it's worth reviewing the process considering that it's late July. I know I'm not clear on it. [ Edit: yous guys typed faster than I did, but I think it's still interesting to discuss the waiver wire process. ]
Thanks.
A no-trade clause can be used to override a waiver claim, and 10/5 rights are senior to a no-trade. Dempster appears to be holding all the cards here.
OK - I think it would be fair to say that Dave Winfield was pretty well liked and respected, no?
George Steinbrenner did one hell of a lot worse -- and more, and more often -- spiteful things to Winfield anything any other team has done to any player in my memory (at least, since Curt Flood).
Did the Yankees ever experience any blowback from this in their pursuit of free agents?
It would be a negative act for now; the question is the future ramifications. It is kind of like when Boras let J. D. Drew go play in an independant league rather than sign with a certain MLB club. It showed the rest of the league for the rest of Boras's career that he will shoot the hostage, if that is what it takes, and not to F*** with Boras. In this case, the next time that a player wanted to exercise his proper and lawful rights, when Theo reminded him that Theo could then exercise his proper and lawful rights, leaving both player and team worse off, the player would know that Theo would pull the trigger, and the player would relent.
zonk stipulated (or at least heavily implied) that the Cubs would release him for the cost of his salary.
He did? That diabolical...
Charles Pierce wrote yesterday that "always and forever, baseball management will mourn the death of the reserve clause." Apparently this is true of some fans as well.
In any case, your argument seems moot. It's far from clear that the Cubs are better off with their don't-####-with-us attitude than they are just letting Dempster pitch, if it came to that; the benefits you outline are extremely tentative and could easily backfire. And it doesn't appear that waivers work that way anyway for 10/5 guys, so it's a stupid plan as well as a particularly douchey one.
But other than that, good thinking, guys.
Yeah - 38 nails it... It's a reverse Boras. We don't want to shoot the hostage, but it's a threat that ought to at least be soft sold. Just like Boras in the Drew negotiations, we hope it doesn't come to that -- but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Hell - for that matter - if LA is the only team that Dempster will "accept" a trade to, perhaps this also gooses the Dodgers a bit... if Dempster becomes available in a week for anyone who's willing to shell out 6 million, then perhaps they get a bit concerned that a competitor gets to him first. Dempster has experience closing -- and last I checked, the Giants have some issues at the back end of their bullpen.
I have no idea - I was like ten years old back then.
Wasn't that around the time teams were colluding to hold down FA salaries?
But the equation of having a pissed off ("you just tried to trade me") veteran on your roster earning another $5 million to pitch for 54 games that will decide whether your team finishes in 5th place or 4th place, and whom you have no interest in signing after the year (all of which fits this Cubs situation), vs. just putting the guy on waivers, and saving the $5 million, seems to be a pretty close one, to me. Yes, the Cubs would be better if they could get rid of the $5 million salary burden and get Randall Delgado, but that may not be an option that they have.
First of all - it was MY plan! Not a collective plan.
Second of all, from what I can tell in the CBA -- the 10/5 would only apply if a trade were to be put together... Near as I can tell - and I'm far from certain - the Cubs could just do the screw job and get nothing back (except save 6 million). They just probably don't have any leverage to work out a deal.
Finally, I still come back to 38 -- Scott Boras is VERY good at his job. To some extent, it probably did cost him clients and there are also some teams that supposedly, will not negotiate with him... but he still gets clients and he still gets them really big contracts.
Nothing wrong with showing men of will exactly what will is -- Kaizer Sose taught me that.
They were -- but still signed the immortal Ed Whitson!
You're threatening to do something that cuts directly against the team's best interest. Not much of a threat. No player is going to believe a threat like that, even if it's true.
"Selling" an idea like that only underlines your lack of leverage.
LOL. That is all.
U
As I understand things, "trade" is mostly an informal word in MLB rather than an official one. I believe the formal word for all trades, waiver claims, etc., is "transferred," and when it comes to no-trade clauses and 10/5 rights, there's no difference between a trade and a waiver claim. Both are "transfers" that can be blocked by the player.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.