Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Rosenthal: Dempster does not want to be traded to Atlanta Braves

Proof of his sanity, really.

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. With the non-waiver deadline still a week away, there is still time for the Cubs and Dodgers to negotiate a suitable trade. The Dodgers remain interested in Dempster, but their talks with the Cubs reached a stalemate, sources said.

The Braves and Cubs reached agreement Monday on a trade that would send Dempster to Atlanta, reportedly for right-hander Randall Delgado.

No deal, however, can be completed without Dempster’s approval. Later on Monday, Dempster said on his Twitter account that there was no trade.

The problem for Dempster is that the Braves apparently made a better offer for him than the Dodgers, and that the Dodgers also are trying to trade for other starting pitchers

Depressoteric Posted: July 24, 2012 at 02:23 PM | 274 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: atlanta, braves, chicago, clownshow, cubs

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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4191078)
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.
   2. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4191082)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4191083)
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.

[Edit: grammar]
   4. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4191089)
Just for the record, neither do I.
   5. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4191091)
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.
   6. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4191092)
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

Dempster hasn't rejected it yet.

Jayson Stark is saying that there should be a resolution soon.
   7. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4191095)
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.
   8. Depressoteric Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4191096)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4191098)
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.
   10. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4191099)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4191100)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4191102)
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?
   13. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4191105)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4191106)
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.
   15. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4191110)
At this point Ryan Dempster is welcome to go eat a bag of dicks, really. Jesus. What a primadonna.
   16. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4191113)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4191114)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4191116)
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.
   19. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4191120)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4191121)
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!
   21. DA Baracus Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4191122)
At this point Ryan Dempster is welcome to go eat a bag of dicks, really. Jesus. What a primadonna.


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?
   22. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4191123)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4191125)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4191126)
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!
   25. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4191127)
He's probably just angling to get the Braves to offer him a lucrative extension, right?
   26. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4191129)
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.
   27. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4191131)
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.
   28. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4191132)
At this point Ryan Dempster is welcome to go eat a bag of dicks, really. Jesus. What a primadonna.

Awww, you poor widdle thing. Someone get a binky for baby Sammy!
   29. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4191134)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4191136)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4191137)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4191138)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4191139)
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: July 24, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4191142)
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 is not here 'til October Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4191144)
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. ]

Thanks.
   36. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 24, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4191145)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4191148)

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: July 24, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4191150)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4191151)
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, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4191154)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4191156)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4191159)

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.
   43. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4191162)
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?
   44. Tricky Dick Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4191163)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4191164)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4191165)

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: July 24, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4191166)
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!
   48. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4191170)
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: July 24, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4191171)
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.

U
   50. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4191173)
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.
   51. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4191174)
I've searched the CBA multiple times around waivers and I see nothing in them that wouldn't allow a 10/5 player to get the Rios treatment. The 10/5 provision states that such a player's contract cannot "be assigned" to another club -- i.e., traded -- but it's not altogether clear that waivers fall under this provision.
   52. bfan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4191175)
You're threatening to do something that cuts directly against the team's best interest. Not much of a threat.


And sticking J. D. Drew in an independant league was not in his best interest (or at least a huge risk, if he had been hurt); and sending Appel back to Stanford was not in his best interest (again, or it is a huge risk). Or when player x under valid contract for the year feels he is underpaid and holds out for another two million, where it is clearly in the team's short-term interest to pay that player another two million and get him on the field (Chris Johnson and the Ttans come to mind); this sort of thing (acting one way in the short-term because of the long-term ramifications happens all of the time).
   53. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4191176)
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.


OK - you might have it right then... or -- at least I'd need to sit down with the waiver portion of the CBA.
   54. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4191183)
Nothing wrong with showing men of will exactly what will is -- Kaizer Sose taught me that.

So your plan would accurately be described as The Triumph of the Will?
   55. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4191184)
So your plan would accurately be described as The Triumph of the Will?


Nein! Nein! Nein!
   56. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4191185)
The 10/5 provision states that such a player's contract cannot "be assigned" to another club

I had a brain cramp in #50. "Assigned" was the word I was looking for.
   57. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4191187)
I had a brain cramp in #50. "Assigned" was the word I was looking for.


Re-reading more of the CBA, it looks like you might be correct... dammit.
   58. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4191191)
Sooo...we're back to bringing Zambrano back into town to make Dempster WANT to leave. Didn't Demp dislike Milton Bradley, too? What's he up to nowadays?
   59. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4191193)
Michael Barrett would listen...
   60. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4191194)
Yes, a 10/5 player can refuse a waiver claim. A waiver claim is essentially a standardized trade or sale, the player's contract for $5,000 or whatever piddling amount the waiver price is. It can be refused by a 10/5 guy. I remember this happening a few years ago, but I can't remember the details. Was it Carlos Lee?
   61. Spahn Insane Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4191196)
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.

It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway; Silva didn't sign with the Cubs as a free agent.
   62. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4191198)
Yes, a 10/5 player can refuse a waiver claim. A waiver claim is essentially a standardized trade or sale, the player's contract for $5,000 or whatever piddling amount the waiver price is. It can be refused by a 10/5 guy. I remember this happening a few years ago, but I can't remember the details.

I believe it has happened a few times over the years. There was a years-long dispute between the union and MLB over whether players with 10/5 rights or no-trade clauses should even be put on waivers at all.

Was it Carlos Lee?

Lee rejected a trade to the Dodgers earlier this year, but waivers weren't involved. (2012 is his first year with 10/5 rights, although he reportedly bargained some of his away.)
   63. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4191199)
Plan B is getting the band back together... Let's see - we can get Z for a song, we only need to contact Milton's parole officer, and Michael Barrett is already packing. Where is Sammy and his boombox? Has anyone seen Dave Kingman lately?

"Will" takes many forms.

On a serious note, starting Dempster tomorrow seems like madness.
   64. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4191203)
Not starting him tomorrow seems like begging to have to answer a grievance.
   65. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 24, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4191206)
The Cubs could magnanimously offer Ryan the opportunity to fly home and talk about things with his family...
   66. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4191212)
I thought Dempster's family lived with him a couple blocks from Wrigley? Is that just he who lives there?
   67. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4191217)
I might be wrong... Rosenthal cited proximity to his home in Vancouver as a factor in his preference.
   68. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4191224)
Did the Yankees ever experience any blowback from this in their pursuit of free agents?


It absolutely did. Most famously, Greg Maddux turned down the Yankees' bigger offer to sign with the Braves. I thought it was an openly discussed concern at the time.
   69. Chipper Jonestown Massacre Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4191231)
Rumor has it that the concept of a "pennant chase" had to be explained to Dempster, several times...
   70. Zipperholes Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4191232)
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.
I won't speculate as to the attitude of MLB players. But if I were one, I'd want to play for a team whose primary focus was to do anything and everything they could to get better, rather than observing vague notions of "respect" and "loyalty" to employees signed to arm's length contracts.
   71. Lassus Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4191233)
Has Zonk been spending too much time in the Delta Quadrant again?
   72. Chipper Jonestown Massacre Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4191237)
Here's hoping Dumpster gets absolutely bombed by the Pirates and pulls a hammy or something...
(Y'know, nothing serious, just enough to torpedo a trade to his precious LA Dodgers.)
   73. SouthSideRyan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4191243)
Maybe Dempster's expecting a September repeat by the Braves and figured the Cubs might wind up with a better record by the end of the year.
   74. The District Attorney Posted: July 24, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4191247)
Rosenthal cited proximity to his home in Vancouver as a factor in his preference.
Well, it is true that Atlanta is pretty flippin' far from Vancouver.

Of course, that doesn't explain why Atlanta was allegedly his second choice, or when exactly he expects to be able to get back to Vancouver within the next two months.
   75. DA Baracus Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4191248)
Maybe Dempster's expecting a September repeat by the Braves and figured the Cubs might wind up with a better record by the end of the year.


So he'd be expecting to be a contributor to a collapse?
   76. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4191253)
Dempster seems like truly a good guy, and I respect his right to make the best decision for his family. But, as a Cubs fan, Delgado looks pretty tasty. It'd sure be nice if ol' Ryan would come around on this.
   77. Brian C Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4191262)
I won't speculate as to the attitude of MLB players. But if I were one, I'd want to play for a team whose primary focus was to do anything and everything they could to get better, rather than observing vague notions of "respect" and "loyalty" to employees signed to arm's length contracts.

I would too, but I don't see how dumping a quality player on waivers out of pure spite qualifies as "doing everything they can to get better". That plan lacks the part where the team actually gets better.
   78. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4191264)
But if I were one, I'd want to play for a team whose primary focus was to do anything and everything they could to get better, rather than observing vague notions of "respect" and "loyalty" to employees signed to arm's length contracts.


I prefer an employer that treats me with respect and loyalty.

Dempster's been on the Cubs for almost a decade, and you think the team should just spitefully and uselessly toss him aside, just in order to prove how ruthless they are?
   79. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4191267)
What a welcome awaits Dempster in his debut in Atlanta!
   80. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4191289)
Dempster's been on the Cubs for almost a decade, and you think the team should just spitefully and uselessly toss him aside, just in order to prove how ruthless they are?


Being cuddly hasn't worked out too well.

Time to try something else.

Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting, too, that Dempster has already publicly said he'd be willing to accept a trade to a contender and if Robothal's reporting is accurate, has also said that while LA was his top choice - Atlanta was his second.

What has changed about Atlanta since these supposed comments? What has changed about "a contender" since the comments we KNOW to be true?

Dempster can't have it both ways - saying both publicly, and I guess I'm assuming, privately that he'd be willing to OK a trade then nix it when the trade gets made.

Yes, he's been with the team for a long time - but he's also been well-compensated for that time. Both contracts he signed with the Cubs worked out well for both parties - Dempster got security and FMV, the Cubs got appropriate production from those contracts. We're square.

If Dempster wasn't serious about "a contender" or waiving 10/5 -- then he shouldn't have said so... He should have said he wasn't interested in any trade.

In this scenario, he has wasted the front office's time... time that could have been spent focusing on moving Garza, LaHair, or the always available Soriano.

I'd still have been peeved if Dempster had said 4 weeks ago "No deal - I'm finishing my contract here" - but in this case, he's wasted everyone's time by saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

I'm sorry - but that's not a "good guy" - that's a liar. It may be a liar that's just looking out for his own self-interests, but it still makes him a liar.
   81. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4191299)
But if I were one, I'd want to play for a team whose primary focus was to do anything and everything they could to get better, rather than observing vague notions of "respect" and "loyalty" to employees signed to arm's length contracts.
I think you're mistaking the interests of the fan for the interests of the players.

I've never cared whether my employer was "doing anything and everything they could to get better" at their business, so long as they were reasonably competent and successful. I've always cared a lot how well they treat their employees, whether they keep their promises and can be trusted in all the non-contractual agreements and negotiations that make up the worker-employer relationship.

Pro ballplayers are likely to be more competitive than me, and to care more about the organization winning, but I highly doubt that comes first for most of them.
   82. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4191328)

I've never cared whether my employer was "doing anything and everything they could to get better" at their business, so long as they were reasonably competent and successful. I've always cared a lot how well they treat their employees, whether they keep their promises and can be trusted in all the non-contractual agreements and negotiations that make up the worker-employer relationship.


But this is WHOLLY contractual... it's only Dempster's 10/5 rights - a contract issue that prevented the trade from already being in the books.

What's more - ALL the reporting says that Dempster had reached an agreement with the Cubs to OK a deal. He's been quoted publicly saying he'd be willing to accept a trade to a contender - one comment saying he's 'chomping at the bit' for another playoff shot. Robothal reported - prior to this deal with Atlanta hitting the news - that the Braves were his #2 choice. A previous Tribune column in early July said that Dempster had given the Cubs a list of teams to which he wouldn't accept a trade.

Lord help me, maybe it's Ray/Nieporent/et al rubbing off on me - but that employer-employee relationship is a two way street.

Dempster can't say one thing publicly, the same thing by all accounts privately -- and then say the opposite when the public/private agreement actually comes to pass without breaching that very spirit of good faith you cite as important.

   83. flournoy Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4191337)
Well, it is true that Atlanta is pretty flippin' far from Vancouver.

Of course, that doesn't explain why Atlanta was allegedly his second choice, or when exactly he expects to be able to get back to Vancouver within the next two months.


I've never really understood this notion of "closer to home." Los Angeles is over 1000 miles away from Vancouver. Sure, Atlanta is technically twice as far, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same distance away. That is to say, it's a plane flight away. What does it matter if the plane flight is an hour and a half longer? How often are he or his family going to make that flight?

Once you get past a few hundred miles, you might as well be anywhere on the continent.
   84. bfan Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4191338)
I think you're mistaking the interests of the fan for the interests of the players.


I am not so sure. A roster is 25 players, so when a star player says that the team has to improve, whether he expressly says it or not, he means someone has to lose their job, because someone better must take their place. That player (a star) knows it is not him that is in peril, but it is a tacit agreement to go treat someone under contract badly (fire/demote them), so i can be on a team that wins more games.
   85. sinicalypse Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4191347)
Here in Chicago the consensus seems to be that Dempster is, pardon the internet-borne colloquialism, "butthurt" that he wasn't "in the loop" as to the X's and O's of how this trade went down. The word on the airwaves today seems to be that Ryan woke up from a nap yesterday afternoon circa 3pm and found out that he was an Atlanta Brave.

For Chicago sports fans, this is reminiscent of the Bears/Dave McGinnis debacle back circa 98/99 when the Bears had decided they were going to hire McGinnis, assumed his signing the contract was a mere formality, and went and did unthinkably egotistical things such as setting up his name on their phone system's directory. That's right, Dave McGinnis had an extension and voicemail setup before he had a chance to sign on the dotted line and the resulting butthurt heralded the Dick Jauron era. It wasn't quite Dick's show... but he was on that show.

It's quite fun to hear Cubbie Nation(tm) up in arms because now they feel like Dempster is personally denying them ~5 cost-controlled years of Cy Delgado (how many starting pitching prospects have the Braves given up that turned out to really bite them in the arse?) and he's being a greedy player. Fans usually want it both ways, insomuchas they gripe and moan when a team is reluctant to whip out the checkbook and sign players' to their ideal contract terms, however in a situation like this where you've got a solid pitcher pitching over his head during a walk year, he's suddenly expected to drop all of his collectively-bargained-rights to "take one for the team."

My favorite reaction has been an edgy reaction from local talk show host and reknown jocksniffer, Laurence "Shake That" Holmes, who went on the offensive calling fans a-holes for demanding that Dempster immediately cedes his 10/5 rights to jump at the first trade that the Cubs can pull off along with a backhand of "...and suddenly everyone is an expert about Braves' pitching prospects. Perhaps Sir Laurence of "SHAKE THAT" wants to have Ryan and that heeeeee-larious Harry Caray impression of his on the People's Hour COLON We Do What We Want sometime. I'm still retching from a Dempster interview by aw-shucks/gee-whiz Baseball Troll(tm) Tim Kurkjian who went out of his way to supply gutbusting LOLing at the same old hackneyed Ryan Dempster impersonations. Suffice to say his whole "act" has worn a bit thin, especially when Cubs fans are seemingly a little bit more focused on results. Shomer Shabbos!

# sir talkstoomuch
   86. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4191348)
What does it matter if the plane flight is an hour and a half longer? How often are he or his family going to make that flight?


Especially considering it's only for 2 months, and he'll be on the road for half that time. I see the Braves have a 4 game series in SF in August. That's more games in SF (the closest either team will be to Vancouver) than the Dodgers. Let them visit then.
   87. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4191356)
how many starting pitching prospects have the Braves given up that turned out to really bite them in the arse?


Yeah, but speaking as one of and for all the teams that have acquired the Bruce Chens, Joey Nations, Kevin Blankenships, Kyle Davies over the years - we're due dammit, you hear me? DUE!
   88. Zipperholes Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#4191358)
Dempster's been on the Cubs for almost a decade, and you think the team should just spitefully and uselessly toss him aside, just in order to prove how ruthless they are?
Who said anything about spite? The idea was to save money. And actually, the idea wasn't to actually put him on waivers, but to threaten to, so that he'll accept the deal that's better for the team.
   89. JJ1986 Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4191361)
Wainwright was really good.
   90. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4191363)
Wainwright was really good.


Cardinal pixie dust. Doesn't count.
   91. SoSH U at work Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4191365)
What does it matter if the plane flight is an hour and a half longer? How often are he or his family going to make that flight?


If he has a sick kid at home, as I believe was mentioned earlier, perhaps he's considering the ability to get home quicker should the need arise, rather than with more frequncy.

Here in Chicago the consensus seems to be that Dempster is, pardon the internet-borne colloquialism, "butthurt" that he wasn't "in the loop" as to the X's and O's of how this trade went down. The word on the airwaves today seems to be that Ryan woke up from a nap yesterday afternoon circa 3pm and found out that he was an Atlanta Brave.


And if I were Ryan, I'd absolutely share his ass pain. There is no trade without his approval. It ought to come before zonk is salivating over five years of cost-controlled Delgado.

Who said anything about spite? The idea was to save money. And actually, the idea wasn't to actually put him on waivers, but to threaten to, so that he'll accept the deal that's better for the team.


Zonk's since-refuted let him go for a waiver claim argument was, in fact, built on spite.
   92. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4191375)
And if I were Ryan, I'd absolutely share his ass pain. There is no trade without his approval. It ought to come before zonk is salivating over five years of cost-controlled Delgado.


Except he's publicly expressed his willingness TO be traded, had by some accounts PRIOR to the trade going public, listed Atlanta as choice #2, and by OTHER accounts had given the Cubs FO a list of teams to which he'd go.

This wasn't some blindside. It's been discussed - that's documented with Dempster's own public statements and copious reporting of private discussions that jibe exactly with those public statements.

The discussion would be different if Dempster had either no commented OR said he wasn't interested in leaving.
   93. zonk Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:34 PM (#4191376)

Zonk's since-refuted let him go for a waiver claim argument was, in fact, built on spite.


Well, I think it's open for debate as to whether spite or 6 million dollars was the main course. It's all moot now based on the CBA discussions, but I think I might more accurately term it a "$6,000,000 spite stew".
   94. JJ1986 Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4191379)
If the Cubs asked Dempster where he would agree to be traded and Atlanta was a team on his list, then he is being a dick. If they didn't ask, then it's their fault. I assume what actually happened is he said that he would much rather go to the Dodgers than anywhere else, but would agree to Atlanta if there was no way he could go to LA.
   95. SoSH U at work Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4191392)
Except he's publicly expressed his willingness TO be traded, had by some accounts PRIOR to the trade going public, listed Atlanta as choice #2, and by OTHER accounts had given the Cubs FO a list of teams to which he'd go.


And he reserves the right to change his ####### mind. It's his no-trade right. Not Theo's. Not yours. Not Trixie's. There is no trade until Ryan Dempster says there's one.

If the Cubs want to ship him anywhere, then they ought to tell him that before it's on mlb.com. If following that rather simple protocl isn't a concern for the other parties, then I don't see why he has some obligation to waive his right to make their lives either That other players have allowed themselves to get pressured by fans and media into waiving their no-trade rights through this bassackward system is no reason why Dempster should play along.
   96. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4191397)
Being cuddly hasn't worked out too well.

Time to try something else.


This isn't a real argument.
   97. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4191401)
I agree with SoSH U (#95) on this one. The player has the contractual right to choose whether or where he can be traded, and it's his life.
   98. Zipperholes Posted: July 24, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4191414)
I think you're mistaking the interests of the fan for the interests of the players.

I've never cared whether my employer was "doing anything and everything they could to get better" at their business, so long as they were reasonably competent and successful. I've always cared a lot how well they treat their employees, whether they keep their promises and can be trusted in all the non-contractual agreements and negotiations that make up the worker-employer relationship.

Pro ballplayers are likely to be more competitive than me, and to care more about the organization winning, but I highly doubt that comes first for most of them.
No, I'm saying what I would want as a player (or an employee in any other industry). I want to work for a company who wants to be the best. I don't want to work for a company who is content with mediocrity and people who have no future at the company rotting on the payroll, simply because they've ascended to some senior status.
   99. PreservedFish Posted: July 24, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4191426)
I don't want to work for a company who is content with mediocrity and people who have no future at the company rotting on the payroll, simply because they've ascended to some senior status.


You know, there's some large amount of space between "company that doesn't accept mediocrity" and "company that fires one of its best employees just to show that it can."
   100. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 24, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4191437)
I don't want to work for a company who is content with mediocrity
These are management buzzwords with little content, and what content they do have is mostly a load of crap. Unexceptional competence is a valuable thing to any organization, in most positions.

I also agree with PF that on the specific issue here - the Cubs theoretically cutting Dempster out of spite - we're really stretching the bounds of "seeking excellence" or whatever.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(11 - 11:52am, Aug 01)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(564 - 11:51am, Aug 01)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(30 - 11:49am, Aug 01)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(14 - 11:45am, Aug 01)
Last: bfan

NewsblogMiklasz: Mozeliak sets off a loud wake-up call
(6 - 11:37am, Aug 01)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogThe Dark Side of Booming Local TV Deals
(11 - 11:23am, Aug 01)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogRanking The Prospects Traded At The Deadline - BaseballAmerica.com
(4 - 11:11am, Aug 01)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogCliff Lee Re-Injures Elbow
(27 - 11:10am, Aug 01)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(8 - 10:56am, Aug 01)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(4025 - 10:40am, Aug 01)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogA's Acquire Lester, Gomes For Cespedes
(132 - 10:24am, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAmaro says Phils didn't overvalue players at Deadline | phillies.com: News
(4 - 9:59am, Aug 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(153 - 9:43am, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(2 - 9:36am, Aug 01)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1076 - 9:34am, Aug 01)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

Page rendered in 0.8007 seconds
52 querie(s) executed