Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Nationals trade Henry Rodriguez to Cubs for Ian Dickson; option Nate Karns to Harrisburg
(www.washingtonpost.com)
The Nationals traded right-handed reliever Henry Rodriguez to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for right-hander Ian Dickson. After three years of hoping Rodriguez would develop into a dominant and consistent power arm in their bullpen, the Nationals have finally and completely parted ways with him.
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.
1. Gern Blanston posted on July 14, 2012 at 06:21 PM # hit 0 | hit 0not a bad combo
How would it be recorded in the record-book if he got traded to an AL team with a streak at, say, 55 innings, and then proceeded to break the record? Hmm.
*It helps to play bad team. The Cubs finished June with a 10-17 record which was the same as their May record.
Who thought the Cubs would have the MVP and the CYA this year? :-)
EDIT: Headline of the day, courtesy of ESPN: "Sources: Dempster in demand"
That is all.
Wuh???
The Cubs actually have to pay someone to take Dempster off their hands and get something back?
Getting to your actual point, he's 34 and his career hasn't been exactly HoF quality. I would like to think quality prospects would come in return but it's not 1986.
Well he does lead the NL in ERA (and ERA+). And since the other guys vying for best pitcher in the NL are Vogelsong, Cueto, Zimmerman, Dickey and McDonald, it's not like there's anybody with a better track record. (Although Cueto was much better, when healthy, than I realized last year).
Of course I do agree that I wouldn't put money on him being the best pitcher by the end of the season but it's not outrageous to say he's had the best year so far.
And I agree that it's kinda strange the Cubs would have to pick up money here. Now if picking up money brings back a second good prospect, then by all means. But two months of Dempster is only about $4.5 M and teams should be able to handle that.
I'm surprised that Walt and McCoy are objecting to this. The Cubs should be trying to eat salary every time they trade a player, so that they can get the best return for the farm. Basically, they should be buying prospects as well as trading for them.
This. Every dime of unpaid salary the Cubs pass on to the acquiring team is wasted opportunity for maximizing talent in return.
Because as long as paying freight on Dempster gets them a somewhat better return, it's worth it. They have money coming out their ears.
I will say that more than one "blue chip" (I'm guessing B+ or above) prospect is an unrealistic goal for a two month rental. If the Cubs get a top 50 prospect for Dempster, they should be very happy about it.
No, I think it won't really matter.
I don't see why the Cubs have to pay anyone in a sellers market to get a top 50 prospect. I mean I don't care if they spend 50 million to get that player but when I hear about 10 teams interested in Dempster I'm a little confused about the need to pay someone to take Dempster off the Cubs' hands.
It's not that they can't afford him - but getting Dempster at a good price might mean they still have budget room to get another piece, so I think that's worth another bump in prospect return.
It seems obvious that a $0 Ryan Dempster is more valuable than a $4.5M Ryan Dempster, and should fetch a relatively larger return. Since the Cubs are hardly strapped for cash, and have in fact been restricted from spending as much on prospects as they'd like to in the draft and in the international market, clearly they should send money in trade in order to get a better return.
On the "top 50" prospects thing, I'm just saying that if you expect two top 50 prospects for Dempster, regardless of whether the Cubs pay his salary, you're very likely to be disappointed. That's not market price for a rental of a non-elite pitcher.
I'm further saying that even if the Cubs pay Dempster's salary, two top 50 prospects would be an unexpectedly good return for a two-month rental of a non-elite pitcher.
EDIT: Meant to have something in there along the lines of Pops' #24. One top 50 prospect for Dempster would be a very good return. Coke the post after me.
I don't see how trading and paying Dempster's freight will get the Cubs a top 50 prospect.
I sure hope so. On the plus side, there seems to be little pitching available - particularly if Hamels and Greinke get extended.
On the down side, there is no draft pick compensation available to the acquiring team and I think that's going to decrease the value of half season rentals. Frankly, I suspect the Greinke and Hamels extension talks are in part motivated by the fact that the market for a half season of their services is much softer than the Brewers/Phils had hoped.
I doubt that. The Brewers and Phillies are probably trying to extend those pitchers because they are extremely good and extremely marketable stars. If either team was flatly told by the player "no, I will not sign an extension and am not interested in playing here after this season ends", being well out of contention, they would trade the player for whatever he'd bring.
That goes for the Phillies, anyway. The Brewers aren't completely out of contention just yet.
narveson is coming back from injury.
if the brewers don't sign greinke then the only returning member of the rotation in 2013 is yovani and a bit of fiers who everyone knows is going to have his day of reckoning.
the brewers also want the draft pick.
it would take a real deal, not the typical bbtf deal where the brewers get garbage and everyone tells them to smile as they eat garbage
i don't know all the b+ prospects or better out there. it will take someone or someone(s) that melvin thinks is equivalent to a first round compensatory pick for him to trade greinke
other factor is that trading zack wil be immediately branded as a 'white flag' in the local press
melvin will make the trade if he gets plus value so that he can take some solace in the abuse to follow and provide some promise of 2013.
I don't "object" to it, I'm just surprised that it's "necessary" to get a good return. The Cubs aren't going to do anything I care about with that $4 M so I don't really care what they do with it. But, just as money can be exchanged for goods and services, too much money can be exchanged for goods and services. In the abstract, the Cubs should get "fair value" back for that $4.5 M. They should be able to get a good return for Dempster without picking up the salary. I'm not sure the marginal return on the extra $4.5 will be worth it.
But, sure, not my money so even if all it generates is an entertaining primer thread then I guess I'll get sufficient marginal return out of it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.