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
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.
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.
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).
OK - you might have it right then... or -- at least I'd need to sit down with the waiver portion of the CBA.
So your plan would accurately be described as The Triumph of the Will?
Nein! Nein! Nein!
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.
It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway; Silva didn't sign with the Cubs as a free agent.
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.
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.)
"Will" takes many forms.
On a serious note, starting Dempster tomorrow seems like madness.
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.
(Y'know, nothing serious, just enough to torpedo a trade to his precious LA Dodgers.)
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.
So he'd be expecting to be a contributor to a collapse?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Cardinal pixie dust. Doesn't count.
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.
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.
Zonk's since-refuted let him go for a waiver claim argument was, in fact, built on spite.
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.
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".
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.
This isn't a real argument.
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."
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main