Seems like a dumb trade from the Angels POV. 45 BB's in 55 innings and due 9.8MM in 2013. Yikes! This isn't going to make their bullpen any less frustrating. And they must be confident about resigning Greinke.

Great trade for the Cubs.

Haren will clean up in the NL.

Great trade for the Cubs.

True that. Haren will cost them about 5.5 million more than Marmol, but that's easily worth it. Having thought about it a little more...still don't get what the Angels are up to. They should have just bought out Haren if they didn't want him.

Seems like a dumb trade from the Angels POV. 45 BB's in 55 innings and due 9.8MM in 2013.

Well, their money options were ...

a) pick up Haren's $15.5 M option
b) pay Haren the $3.5 M buyout and make the QO of $13.3 -- probably not a good idea
c) pay Haren the $3.5 M buyout and let him walk

I'll wait to see what if any money exchanges hands here. The Cubs obviously (right?) are picking up Haren's $15.5 M. I'm not too thrilled about that unless the Angels are tossing in the $3.5 they would have to pay anyway. But then the Angels would be paying $13.5 M for a year of Marmol which would be as silly as it gets. I've got the feeling this is straight up.

So the Angels are getting 1 year of Marmol for $6.3 M -- not amazing. For what it's worth, Marmol was more his old self after he came off the DL -- 60 Ks and 29 BBs in 44 IP for a 2.66 ERA. I think I'd have gone for option (c).

From the Cubs' perspective, they go from Marmol to Haren for $5.7 M which is fine unless we get the 2012 Haren. Also the Cubs' bullpen is now non-existent.

Marmol has walked more hitters than Haren in four of the last five seasons; the only time he didn't was 2010, in which Haren beat him by 2.

This is simply the Cubs buying a very expensive lottery ticket in the hopes that they can flip him in July for some good prospects. The Cubs have a ton of money available to spend and can't spend it on prospects directly nor are they going to sign expensive long term contracts so this is about the only way they can get good young players into their system.

I'd say the Cubs are now at 98 losses for next year instead of 112.

Haren is a little better than a lottery ticket. He had a down year by his standards but, at worst, he'll be a cromulent starter and there's a good chance he's a fair bit better than that. The Cubs don't have to be great next season to challenge for the playoffs, just good-ish, and Haren is a good step in that direction.

I guesses the other teams were not too interested in Haren. It would seem pretty easy for just about anyone else to provide a cheaper, better version of Marmol. Then again, maybe the Angels just love Marmol.

Of course, thirs is classic Theo, the kind of I would have loved with Boston but then often didn't work out.

Not a bad gamble I suppose for the Cubs, but the drop in velocity is pretty concerning, no?

Haren had a down year by his standards, but its mostly due to what appears to be a chronic back issue and a loss of velocity. I think right now the Angels are just trying to stockpile arms and let the best six or seven break camp. Sure Pujols and Hunter got off to slow starts, and they waited too long to call up Trout, but the Angels bullpen was the number one reason they missed the playoffs last year.

Walt, the Angels also had option d) Pick up the option and still try to work out a trade, which automatically becomes Haren plus 3.5MM for whatever they can get. Maybe they could have done better than Marmol, but as an Angels fan, while I'm not thrilled by the, I'm not upset by it either.

I like this for the Cubs, assuming the money is as I say ... and even if it's not, they've got plenty of money. But I'm now wowed by it. I find Haren tough to figure.

In 2009, he's awesome. Great K/BB, league-leading WHIP but some of that is the 271 BABIP. The 1.1 HR/9 is a bit troubling but it's Arizona and that K/BB is just awesome.

In 2010 with AZ, he gets knocked around a good bit for a 92 ERA+. Some of that is the ridiculously high 341 BABIP ... but it's also the 23 HR in 140 innings. But the K/BB still looks lovely, he goes to the Angels where the BABIP drops to 274 and the HR rate comes down and he's awesome.

In 2011, basically the same as his Angels 2010.

In 2012, BABIP goes up to 306, the HR rate is back up to 1.4/9 and the IP drops below 6 IP/start but the K/BB is still great.

Anyway, his career HR/9 is 1.1 and he's going to Wrigley so that's not likely to be good. But the K-rate will bump up a little facing pitchers and I see no reason not to expect a lovely K/BB.

At this point, he's a guy who over the last 3 years has thrown 650 innings of 104 ERA+ which is ... Sanchez, Jackson, Lohse, Dempster, Greinke but he's the guy coming off the worst year while probably have the 2nd best upside. That guy for 1/$15.5 is OK but nothing to get excited about. And if he's awesome Haren this year, the Cubs are gonna have to cough up serious dough for 2014+.

I keep trying to see a way the Cubs can use this to sign him to a reasonable longer-term deal but I don't see how that would work. He's got $15.5 in the bag, would he really take 3/$36 instead or 4/$45 instead?

Trade is dead for now.

I'd say the Cubs are now at 98 losses for next year instead of 112.

Well if Haren is gonna have a 14 WAR season, I'm a huge fan of this trade.

I'd say the Cubs are now at 98 losses for next year instead of 112.

I agree that this is a great trade for the Cubs (if it goes through), but it's probably not worth 14 extra wins. Seriously, nice pickup by the Cubs. Even a broken Haren is better than Chris Volstad and Casey Coleman.

Sounds like there's some question about whether this is happening.

Marmol nixed the deal? If I were a Cubs fan (and I do consider myself a Cubs sympathizer) I'd be livid, that team needs as many lottery tickets as it can collect.

Haren is a little better than a lottery ticket. He had a down year by his standards but, at worst, he'll be a cromulent starter and there's a good chance he's a fair bit better than that. The Cubs don't have to be great next season to challenge for the playoffs, just good-ish, and Haren is a good step in that direction

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Even if he posts a 1.20 ERA, completes 27 games and wins 30 games the Cubs next year they are still losing more games than they win and he still won't be around by the time the Cubs actually do have a winning record. If acquiring Haren was done for any other reason besides getting a slightly better lottery ticket than by sticking with Marmol then the entire front office should be fired right now.

Marmol nixed the deal?

How does Marmol even have the power to nix this deal? He only has 7 years in the major leagues. Why on Earth would Hendry have given him a no-trade clause?

I was going to make a snarky comment in my original post about how my statement doesn't mean I think Haren all by his lonesome equals 14 wins but I decided against it to see who would bring it up.

Robo says Marmol would have gone but Cubs mixed it.

How does Marmol even have the power to nix this deal? He only has 7 years in the major leagues. Why on Earth would Hendry have given him a no-trade clause?

Hendry gave everybody at least a year too long, a few millions too many, and a no trade clause. The man simply could not bargain.

Robo says Marmol would have gone but Cubs mixed it.

WEll, that makes no sense unless after seeing the medical reports they discovered Haren was more screwed up than originally believed. Which might be why the Angels were willing to take on Marmol's contract to get rid of him. Marmol at 6 million dollars isn't a bad gamble. It isn't a great gamble but it is something.

Which might be why the Angels were willing to take on Marmol's contract to get rid of him.

They could have gotten rid of him by paying 3.5 million, a lot less than Marmol makes.

They could have gotten rid of him by paying 3.5 million, a lot less than Marmol makes.

And then get someone else. By taking Marmol they would have gotten him for 6.3 million.

If the trade had gone through, the Angels would have certainly been on the hook for Marmol's contract PLUS the 3.5 mil it would have taken to buy Haren out.

I'm not sure why that is a certainty.

Well, first because that's how it was reported. Second, why would you trade for a guy with Haren's contract and pay full price when you could probably wait a day and get him for less, while still having Marmol available for trade? Haren's clearly not worth his whole number or the Angels would be exercising his option.

In 2012, BABIP goes up to 306, the HR rate is back up to 1.4/9 and the IP drops below 6 IP/start but the K/BB is still great.

his average fastball velocity in 2012 was down to 88 MPH, and he barely ever broke 90 MPH. if you go back 2 years, his FB averaged 90, and he peaked at 94-95.

in this case, statistics are an indicator, but not a cause. he didn't regress because he allowed more hits or more HRs or more walks, he regressed because he lost a lot of velocity.

Well, first because that's how it was reported. Second, why would you trade for a guy with Haren's contract and pay full price when you could probably wait a day and get him for less, while still having Marmol available for trade? Haren's clearly not worth his whole number or the Angels would be exercising his option.

i'd guess it's the difference between being locked in for 1 year and being locked in for 3.

maybe he would have signed a 1 year make good contract with the cubs, but that assumes he wouldn't have gotten a multi-year offer, and would be willing to play for a 100 loss team with a terrible offense and a terrible defense.

The Cubs defense isn't terrible. It's about the only thing about the team that isn't.

I was going to make a snarky comment in my original post about how my statement doesn't mean I think Haren all by his lonesome equals 14 wins but I decided against it to see who would bring it up.

In other words, you were trolling. Just like you're doing this whole thread. Just like you've been doing in virtually all Cubs threads in the last year (if not longer).

Great trade for the Cubs.

"Who'd we get?"

Haren had a down year by his standards, but its mostly due to what appears to be a chronic back issue and a loss of velocity.

Oh, well, a chronic back issue and drop in velocity. Who's worried?


Seriously, I'd rather a pitcher's elbow explode than he have back problems. Seems like elbows can be patched up pretty easily these days.

In other words, you were trolling. Just like you're doing this whole thread. Just like you've been doing in virtually all Cubs threads in the last year (if not longer).

Um, no but thanks for trolling today.


I'm trolling even though I've been pretty much right about what would happen to the Cubs this whole year? Interesting take on the situation.

I'm trolling even though I've been pretty much right about what would happen to the Cubs this whole year?

Your take on the Maholm signing wasn't exactly spot-on. You thought it was a stupid move, but he pitched great and got flipped at the deadline for excellent value.

No, I thought it was a pointless trade since the Cubs would be terrible and I wasn't in love with the idea that the Cubs could flip him for anything of real value at the deadline. The jury is still out on that trade since Vizcaino hasn't played since 2011. As of right now the Cubs signed a lottery ticket and traded him for another lottery ticket. I'm not impressed.

I'm trolling even though I've been pretty much right about what would happen to the Cubs this whole year?

Being right is quite often definitional "trolling" around here.

Oh, well, a chronic back issue and drop in velocity. Who's worried?

My thoughts exactly.

If Haren were just coming off a down year, he'd be a great trade target. But if the down year was caused by back problems that haven't gone away, he's not a target at all. I think this is a case for scouts, not stats. You need to see him get some velocity back and/or throw without pain before you think about signing him.

The problem is how the hell can you get a pitcher of Haren's potential quality at the price you're going to get him right now if it wasn't for red flags? The back is a major concern, but I think the velocity drop can be overreacted to. We have a limited amount of reliable data on the effects of velocity and plenty of guys in the past have compensated for velocity loss with better decision making and command.

He's a risk for sure, but that risk is going to be priced into whatever you wind up paying for him.

So what will he get on the open market? It seems like he's a good bet for 1/10. That's enough to be a decent salary but small enough to be worth some team taking a risk. I don't see anyone wanting to give him enough to make 2+ years worth his while.

We have a limited amount of reliable data on the effects of velocity...

Nolan Ryan says "hello."

We have a limited amount of reliable data on the effects of velocity and plenty of guys in the past have compensated for velocity loss with better decision making and command.

A stuff pitcher who loses his stuff is facing a career crisis. He's got to learn a whole new way of getting people out. To me, that says one year, incentive laden contract.

Speaking of limited histories, how many pitchers in the past have been effective with bad backs? Randy Johnson, I guess, but who else? It's hard to say that Johnson's back took anything away from his stuff.

Haven't seen Haren this year so can't comment on his stuff but, reduced velocity and bad back or not, the man was still K'ing 7.2/9 just like he did in 2011 and he still had a K/BB over 3.5. So if he needs to learn a way to get by with reduced stuff, he seems to have learned it.

He got hammered on HR (not for the first time) and some on BABIP (but no worse than his age 27 and 29 seasons).

Did another Cub veto a trade to SF earlier this year as well? Epstein's rebuilding project is being hamstrung by the no-trade clauses handed out by the previous regime.

Did another Cub veto a trade to SF earlier this year as well? Epstein's rebuilding project is being hamstrung by the no-trade clauses handed out by the previous regime.

Yes, Soriano supposedly did. (That wasn't because of a no-trade clause, though; Soriano had 10-and-5 rights. As did Dempster. Your general point is correct, though. Jim Hendry was a godawful negotiator.)

I'd say the Giants got the last laugh in that scenario.

Of course, Soriano's having 10-and-5 rights raises the question of why the hell he got a deal of more than 5 years to begin with. Just the Cubs luck he had a year in which he was tradable in year six of his deal.