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

Esoteric 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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. SoSH U at work Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4193562)
That's all anyone's saying. Again, no one's disputing that he has 10/5 rights and that the Cubs ought to respect that. The whole issue is that Dempster ought to have handled it better.


No, that's not all anyone is saying. That's what you've said, I'll grant. But that is most definitely not what zonk (and now friends) are saying.

So, zonk, I take it that's a yes. (-:
   202. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4193563)
That's all anyone's saying.

Well, that and they are going to boo him now because he is still playing for the Cubs.
   203. Spahn Insane Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4193564)
No, not really. Could he have handled it better? Sure, that's probably true to an extent.

Actually, that's a pretty mild way of saying it. As I now see it, Dempster deliberately toyed with Cubs management (and by extension, their fans). He of course is free to base his decisions on having earned 10-and-5 rights, family concerns, mere spite, or what have you. Doesn't make him any less self-centered.

FWIW, I never said I'd boo Dempster. Probably won't bother to show up next time he starts, though.
   204. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4193567)
And we know he deliberately toyed with Cubs management because?
   205. Brian C Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4193570)
No, that's not all anyone is saying. That's what you've said, I'll grant. But that is most definitely not what zonk (and now friends) are saying.

Sure it is. Their reaction is more extreme than mine, but the substance of their objections is exactly the same.

(With the exception that zonk has now apparently gone full-out "screw his 10/5 rights".)
   206. Spahn Insane Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4193571)
OK, you troll--we don't "know" it; we merely "have strong circumstantial evidence and Dempster's own statements." You're not even worth engaging.
   207. SoSH U at work Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4193574)
Actually, that's a pretty mild way of saying it. As I now see it, Dempster deliberately toyed with Cubs management (and by extension, their fans). He of course is free to base his decisions on having earned 10-and-5 rights, family concerns, mere spite, or what have you. Doesn't make him any less self-centered.


Yes, how dare he think of how it affects him, when there's zonk's feelings that should be paramount in his mind. (-:

I will grant this - if Ryan Dempster knew he had no interest in going to Atlanta all along but led the Cubs to believe he did, that would indeed be assholish behavior. Do you really think that's what happened?

As an aside, why should Ryan Dempster be remotely interested in the Cubs maximizing the value they get out of him when they trade him elsewhere? Shouldn't, competitively speaking, he want his new team to give up as little as possible?

   208. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4193576)
I kept holding out hoping for some heretofore unknown details to emerge that make all this the result of some misunderstanding.

And Dempster doesn't owe the Cubs a trade approval but...

His public comments after the failed trade are what really backed the Cubs into a corner here. If he hadn't gone public with everything the Dodgers might not be aware they are the only suitor. Dempster is free to say 'F the Cubs,I'm airing my greivances' but it's pretty hard to characterize his handling of this mess as anything but very bad.
   209. Spahn Insane Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4193577)
I will grant this - if Ryan Dempster knew he had no interest in going to Atlanta all along but led the Cubs to believe he did, that would indeed be assholish behavior. Do you really think that's what happened?

Yes.
   210. JJ1986 Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4193580)
I think he probably had no intention of going to Atlanta if the Dodgers were still on the table. So he might have accepted the trade if LA had already acquired Greinke or Garza, but not otherwise.
   211. SoSH U at work Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4193581)

Yes.


Then I can see why you'd think he's being an #######. Now, I can't see why on earth you'd come to that conclusion, rather than the one where Ryan Dempster isn't a sociopath and just, for whatever reason (even one that only makes sense to him), changed his mind, I have no idea.

   212. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4193583)
I don't get how this keeps getting glossed over. It seems to me that the basic premise of the anti-Dempster argument -- ie, he agreed to be traded to Atlanta and then changed his mind -- is basically false. He is not contractually obligated to agree to a trade before the teams have a deal, and he clearly is saying that he never did agree to accept a trade to Atlanta. Saying that he would consider accepting a trade to a contender, specifically Los Angeles or Atlanta, is not the same thing as agreeing to accept a trade to either Los Angeles or Atlanta. And I suspect that Theo and Frank knew this when they were negotiating with each other.


Of course - that one statement is at odds with other statements from Dempster. He has previously said he was 'chomping at the bit' for another shot a ring, for example, when the idea of a trade was first being discussed by the media in June. Every public statement from him jibes with the 'according to a source' reporting.

He hung the Cubs FO out to dry - either he was willing to go to Atlanta or he wasn't.
   213. Esoteric Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4193588)
Based on the commentary in this thread, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Ryan Dempster is the greatest monster to emerge from the Chicago area since John Wayne Gacy.
   214. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4193594)
That's all anyone's saying. Again, no one's disputing that he has 10/5 rights and that the Cubs ought to respect that. The whole issue is that Dempster ought to have handled it better.



No, that's not all anyone is saying. That's what you've said, I'll grant. But that is most definitely not what zonk (and now friends) are saying.

So, zonk, I take it that's a yes. (-:


???? "Respect" his 10/5 rights? The Cubs have no choice in the matter. He's got 10/5 rights. End of story. There is no possible way to trade him without his consent. I'd have to re-read the CBA, but I'm fairly sure that since I wasn't a signatory to the CBA -- I have no obligations towards his 10/5 rights.

Is there a clause somewhere that requires me, the fan of a team going nowhere with a sought-after 36 yo SP in the last year of his contract, to grin and bear it when Dempster chooses to exercise those 10/5 rights, and especially, when he exercises them AFTER publicly indicating his intention to move on?

(With the exception that zonk has now apparently gone full-out "screw his 10/5 rights".)


I am saying nothing of the sort. As I said above, my "feelings" on Dempster exercising his 10/5 rights are moot. All I am left with is to express MY feelings and exercising MY rights to express displeasure over Dempster's actions in a variety of forums... and as we sit here, I am now checking stubhub for tix next week with the intention of doing precisely that.
   215. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4193596)
Based on the commentary in this thread, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Ryan Dempster is the greatest monster to emerge from the Chicago area since John Wayne Gacy.


Well, he does have a reputation as a clubhouse clown... I'm just saying.
   216. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4193598)
It is quite a thing. The Cubs finally have a front office that knows enough not to run down a player's value before trading him, and now the player goes ahead and does it himself.
   217. SoSH U at work Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4193609)
????


Sorry. That was a separate response to your lengthy justification for booing Dempster (and the question I posited before that), though since they ended up on two different pages, it truly lost any semblence of coherency.

   218. Spahn Insane Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4193613)
Of course - that one statement is at odds with other statements from Dempster. He has previously said he was 'chomping at the bit' for another shot a ring, for example, when the idea of a trade was first being discussed by the media in June. Every public statement from him jibes with the 'according to a source' reporting.

If he's so hot for a ring, he shouldn't have shat the bed along with the rest of the team in the '08 NLDS. Maybe he would've rather been with the Dodgers then, too. Certainly he helped the Dodgers shot at a ring by giving up a grand slam to the worst hitting first baseman in baseball.
   219. Spahn Insane Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4193616)
Now, I can't see why on earth you'd come to that conclusion, rather than the one where Ryan Dempster isn't a sociopath and just, for whatever reason (even one that only makes sense to him), changed his mind, I have no idea.

That version of events doesn't mean Dempster's a sociopath, but it does mean he's acting with self-centered disregard for what the team was doing in partial reliance on his previous statements about his willingness to accept a trade. That he "changed his mind" and "had a right to change his mind" does not make his "changing his mind" less selfish.
   220. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4193623)

If he's so hot for a ring, he shouldn't have shat the bed along with the rest of the team in the '08 NLDS. Maybe he would've rather been with the Dodgers then, too. Certainly he helped the Dodgers shot at a ring by giving up a grand slam to the worst hitting first baseman in baseball.


You know - if Dempster and company hadn't shat the bed in 2008 - I think I might honestly feel a lot differently about this whole thing.

I remember 1984 - and while that team shat the bed in the playoffs, too - it was the first Cub team playing in October in a LONG time. I remember being very upset when the Cubs traded Ron Cey - even though he was a 38 yo statue and the team was creaky old. However, that '84 sort of "felt" like a winner based on the long drought up till then.

Nowadays, I just can't stir up the warm and fuzzies for members of a division winner.

If the 2008 Cubs had won a title - I really do think that even 4 years later, I'd still have enough happiness from the event to basically say "Sure, Ryan... stick around... we can live on memories until you retire."

Of course, if that HAD been the case -- I highly suspect that we'd still have Hendry in the FO and probably a Pinellia chosen successor at the helm in the dugout.
   221. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4193638)
No, that's not all anyone is saying. That's what you've said, I'll grant. But that is most definitely not what zonk (and now friends) are saying.


That's what I was saying. I know he's got rights. I just don't like the way he wasn't more upfront from the start by basically saying, "I only want to go to LA." Even if this is said behind closed doors, you at least spare management the embarrassment of working out a trade that would send you somewhere you don't want to go. If he's upfront about only wanting to go to LA, do you really think Thed even bothers working out a deal with anyone else? And by not being upfront until the 11th hour, he squandered pretty much any chance of going to LA since his comments gave the Cubs zero leverage in getting anything really worthwhile in return.
   222. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 27, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4193670)
He hung the Cubs FO out to dry - either he was willing to go to Atlanta or he wasn't.


And what if the answer was always, "Well, I'd definitely think about it"? Seems to me there are some assumptions involved in concluding that his statements are at odds with each other. Maybe he was "chomping at the bit" for a shot at a ring with the Dodgers and figured that acting like another team or two were also options would give the Cubs a little leverage, which in turn would make it more likely that the Cubs would get enough of a return from the Dodgers to trade him there. I think we'd have to know a lot more about Dempster's private comments to understand whether he really hung the Cubs out to dry.
   223. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4193688)
OK, you troll--we don't "know" it; we merely "have strong circumstantial evidence and Dempster's own statements." You're not even worth engaging.

I had no idea that you are the all seeing eye. You have virtually no evidence that Dempster lied to or deceived the Cubs but, hey, you're pissed so he's evil. I get it.
   224. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4193689)
And what if the answer was always, "Well, I'd definitely think about it"? Seems to me there are some assumptions involved in concluding that his statements are at odds with each other. Maybe he was "chomping at the bit" for a shot at a ring with the Dodgers and figured that acting like another team or two were also options would give the Cubs a little leverage, which in turn would make it more likely that the Cubs would get enough of a return from the Dodgers to trade him there. I think we'd have to know a lot more about Dempster's private comments to understand whether he really hung the Cubs out to dry.


That just seems unlikely -

The Cubs had been working the Dempster trade angle hard for weeks. I have to think that the Cubs FO is smart enough NOT to get too deeply into trade talks unless they had at least a very good (let's say at least 80%) chance he'd go. Multiple sources indicated that Dempster had supplied a list of acceptable destinations. Other reports put Atlanta at #2 on that list.

Add to that - Dempster HAS had some rather emotional reactions (his tantrum earlier this week, coming a year after a shouting match with Quade). He's also a bit of a 'clubhouse personality' -- no, he's not Carlos Zambrano - but he is a guy that seems to sometimes wear his emotions on his sleeve.

I suppose you can make the argument that Thed should have factored that in, but all signs --- public statements and reporting -- indicate that Dempster probably misled the FO to believe he was MORE willing to accept a deal that it seems he was.

There is nothing at all to support this idea that Dempster was being the wily helpful soul trying to get Thed as much leverage with the Dodgers as possible.
   225. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 27, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4193738)
Dempster probably misled the FO to believe he was MORE willing to accept a deal that it seems he was.


That could be true without indicating anything approaching malice on Dempster's part. He may very well have misled himself to believe that he was more willing to accept a deal than he really was. But unless he flat-out told Theo that he would definitely go to Atlanta if the teams could agree on a package, then I don't think he deserves the level of scorn he's getting here.

Also, if I'm not mistaken the CBA requires written approval of trades from 10-5 guys, and does allow for it to be obtained in advance of the actual deal being worked out between the teams. So Theo could have gone that route if it was so important to know that Dempster would go before negotiating the deal with Frank.
   226. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4193796)
That could be true without indicating anything approaching malice on Dempster's part. He may very well have misled himself to believe that he was more willing to accept a deal than he really was. But unless he flat-out told Theo that he would definitely go to Atlanta if the teams could agree on a package, then I don't think he deserves the level of scorn he's getting here.


I don't think anyone - including me - have accused Dempster of 'malice'. In fact, my guess is that your second sentence nails it precisely. That's still dishonesty - even if it's too himself as well as the Cubs.

The two are not tied, of course, but the recent Garza injury really adds to what a screwjob this became for the Cubs. Trades - as I would think we could all agree from the frequency of them - are not easy things to work out. While I'm sure Thed can handle multiple pots on the stove at once, Dempster WAS the focus... he yanks the rug, and bam -- Garza tweaks something now they can't turn back to him, either.
   227. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 27, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4193805)
Based on the commentary in this thread, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Ryan Dempster is the greatest monster to emerge from the Chicago area since John Wayne Gacy.

Typical BTF liberal left-wing Obama worship.
   228. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4193810)
The two are not tied, of course, but the recent Garza injury really adds to what a screwjob this became for the Cubs. Trades - as I would think we could all agree from the frequency of them - are not easy things to work out. While I'm sure Thed can handle multiple pots on the stove at once, Dempster WAS the focus... he yanks the rug, and bam -- Garza tweaks something now they can't turn back to him, either.

Trades being difficult is why I was so down on this whole notion of stockpiling mediocrity and lottery picks before the season started.
   229. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 27, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4193877)
Trades being difficult is why I was so down on this whole notion of stockpiling mediocrity and lottery picks before the season started.

Of course, IIRC, your plan was for the FO to up payroll by $70m, so that you could now be 10 games out of first, instead of 17.
   230. Brian C Posted: July 27, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4193891)
Of course, IIRC, your plan was for the FO to up payroll by $70m, so that you could now be 10 games out of first, instead of 17.

But just think of how much better off the Cubs would be had they given Carlos Pena that multi-year extension!
   231. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4193903)
Of course, IIRC, your plan was for the FO to up payroll by $70m, so that you could now be 10 games out of first, instead of 17.

Nor would all that extra payroll have hurt them in the future.

But just think of how much better off the Cubs would be had they given Carlos Pena that multi-year extension!


Yeah, I'd really hate to have Carlos Pena at the market rate right now.


But yes go ahead and mock me even though you guys are saying the Cubs are going to be crap until 2015.
   232. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4193933)
Plus, they wouldn't have dumped Andrew Cashner because a retooling contender doesn't boot one of its best five starting pitchers for a minor leaguer whose only position is already filled.
   233. Brian C Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4193976)
the Cubs are going to be crap until 2015.

I blame Ryan Dempster.
   234. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4193982)

But just think of how much better off the Cubs would be had they given Carlos Pena that multi-year extension!


I do have to admit, though... Iuis Stewbuena does often make me get googly eyed for A-ram... I doubt we'd be appreciably better off than we are now with Rameriz (and keep in mind - the damage done this year came early... A-Ram also struggled early in Milwaukee), but hoo-boy... Ian Stewart....
   235. Brian C Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4193987)
Yeah, I'd really hate to have Carlos Pena at the market rate right now.

What is the "market rate" for Pena? Dude's hitting .195 with a 92 OPS+. No one's trading anything of value to get him, even if trades weren't so difficult. It's not like he's even hitting well lately to get the eye of potential trade partners. In what way are they better off with him than LaHair, even if they hadn't called up Rizzo?
   236. bachslunch Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4193990)
Well, he does have a reputation as a clubhouse clown... I'm just saying.

That's a clown comment, bro.
   237. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4194010)
What is the "market rate" for Pena? Dude's hitting .195 with a 92 OPS+. No one's trading anything of value to get him, even if trades weren't so difficult. It's not like he's even hitting well lately to get the eye of potential trade partners. In what way are they better off with him than LaHair, even if they hadn't called up Rizzo?

Pena got a 1 year 7.5 million dollar contract. That's the market rate for him so the Cubs could have offered him something like 8 or 9 million and got him. Which is what I said the Cubs should do which was to pay the going rate for him.

Plus, they wouldn't have dumped Andrew Cashner because a retooling contender doesn't boot one of its best five starting pitchers for a minor leaguer whose only position is already filled.


I have no idea why this would be true. Andrew Cashner isn't a starting pitcher.
   238. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4194020)
Cashner started 2011 in the rotation and the Padres are using him as a starter.
   239. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4194023)
Cashner started 2011 in the rotation and the Padres are using him as a starter.

Cashner started one game in 2011 and he started 3 games in 2012 so far. His first start came on June 9th when he went 2.1 innings, he then started on June 28th and went 6.1 innings and his final start came on July 3rd and he went 2 innings.
   240. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4194029)
Wasn't that last start shortened due to injury?

That's part of why I didn't mind the trade; Cashner strikes me as the kind of pitcher who will be effective, but injury prone.
   241. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4194040)
Wasn't that last start shortened due to injury?

Yes, as was his 2011 start. He was used as a reliever in 2011 only after coming back in September from his injury sustained in the start. When he comes off the DL he will be a starter again.

EDIT: and whether Cashner would have been a member of the rotation or the Cubs' best reliever is kind of beside the point. He would have broken ST on the 25 man roster as a Cub and contending teams don't trade real contributors for prospects who aren't ready for the show.
   242. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4194044)
So this player who had a grand total of 1 start for the Cubs was viewed as one of the Cubs' 5 best starting pitchers headed into this season and there was going to be no way the Cubs would trade him for a highly regarded prospect like Rizzo if the Cubs were going to try and compete this year? I'm simply not buying that at all.

As I said in the offseason the Cubs were a team could try and contend this year while also building for the future. They have the resources to do both and could have done both.
   243. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 27, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4194053)
Yes, Andrew Cashner sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus in 2010 and immediately appeared in MLB. He only had one start ever; it's not like he had a bunch of minor league appearances of which 90% were starts to indicate some sort of preparation in a future role.

As I said in the offseason the Cubs were a team could try and contend this year while also building for the future. They have the resources to do both and could have done both.

If you are of the opinion that 2012 has borne this out then there is probably no point in further discussion.
   244. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4194060)
Nor would all that extra payroll have hurt them in the future.

Says the guy who has been peddling Soriano's contract in virtually every thread posted on this site.
   245. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 27, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4194064)
To be fair, I don't think McCoy is worried about the money Soriano is getting, he's just sick of him being on the team.
   246. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4194076)
Yes, Andrew Cashner sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus in 2010 and immediately appeared in MLB. He only had one start ever; it's not like he had a bunch of minor league appearances of which 90% were starts to indicate some sort of preparation in a future role.

Yeah and it isn't like he played in 2010 in the majors or anything. AGain, if you think Andrew Cashner was one of the 5 best options for the starting rotation heading into this season, well, I guess there is no further point in discussing this.

If you are of the opinion that 2012 has borne this out then there is probably no point in further discussion.


The 2012 team as assembled isn't the team I wanted so I'm not sure how it is proof that they couldn't have done both. The Cubs got the team that they built which is a team flirting with 100 or more losses.


Says the guy who has been peddling Soriano's contract in virtually every thread posted on this site.


And saying Soriano is available has nothing to do with clearing money to get other players. I said it numerous times in the offseason that the Cubs could afford Soriano and do other things.
   247. salviaman Posted: July 27, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4194101)
Forgive me, I don't have the time to read most of the prior posts. But when Dempster says "I'm going to do what's best for me and my family", what the hey is he talking about? This trade to Atlanta would have lasted 2 or 3 months or whatever. What's the big difference to his family? What about doing what's best for the Cubs, who have treated him with respect and and made him a very rich man. I hope he gets booed when he pitches in Wrigley, and I hope Cubs fans stop donating to his Foundation. I believe Dempster has said in his defense that the public doesn't have enough information to have an opinion. If that's true, I don't see why, when this is over, he won't come out and explain just what he meant, what the strong mitigating circumstances were. I'll be happy to change my opinion if warrented
   248. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4194115)
What about doing what's best for the Cubs, who have treated him with respect and and made him a very rich man.

And in return Ryan Dempster pitched for the Cubs without complaint for many years. Ryan Dempster has honored his contract with the Cubs. Nowhere in the contract does it say that Ryan must do what is best for the Cubs.


I hope Cubs fans stop donating to his Foundation

Yeah! Take that, charity!

   249. salviaman Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4194147)
---"Nowhere in the contract does it say that Ryan must do what is best for the Cubs."
******

Fair enough. But in maintaining his unnecessarily selfish (IMO, of course) position, over only a couple months (not to mention a chance at a title), Dempster should make sure his reasons are sufficient to accept whatever disapproval comes his way from Cubs fans.

---"Yeah! Take that, charity!
**********

Well, Dempster has undoubtedly gotten a lot of contributions and support based on his celebrity and the goodwill he has built up. If his decision damages that goodwill, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander

   250. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4194149)
That's part of why I didn't mind the trade; Cashner strikes me as the kind of pitcher who will be effective, but injury prone.


A poor man's Rich Harden - that sounds about right...
   251. Esoteric Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4194158)
Greinke to the Angels for SS Jean Segura and two AA prospects, according to Robothal.

EDIT: AA prospects are Ariel Pena and Johnny Heilweg.
   252. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4194162)
Greinke to the Angels for SS Jean Segura and two AA prospects, according to Robothal.

EDIT: AA prospects are Ariel Pena and Johnny Heilweg.


Wow. That seems like a pretty massive steal for the Halos. Segura's stock has fallen a fair bit. I've heard of Pena and Heilweg, but they're not names that stick with me as significant.

Cripes, if that's what Greinke nets, maybe I (and the Cubs) are nuts thinking Webster + more is a fair deal for Dempster.

EDIT: Looking at Segura's line, he hit well in AA this year. I guess I'm just remembering him being yanked around between SS and 2B.
   253. madvillain Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4194164)
Hard to believe the White Sox weren't more involved if that was the price. Jeez, mediocre return at best from what I can tell.
   254. Esoteric Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4194167)
Cripes, if that's what Greinke nets, maybe I (and the Cubs) are nuts thinking Webster + more is a fair deal for Dempster.
Well, remember: a half-season rental in the post-CBA world (no comp draft pick) is still a half-season rental with no comp pick, regardless of how good a pitcher we're talking about.

Also, the Angels sent the #2, #4, and #9 prospects in their farm system to the Brewcrew, according to the BA rankings. It ain't Mike Trout, but that's still not TOO shabby.
   255. zonk Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4194171)
Also, the Angels sent the #2, #4, and #9 prospects in their farm system to the Brewcrew, according to the BA rankings. It ain't Mike Trout, but that's still not TOO shabby.


OK, yeah - I think I Kruk'ed 252... I had a lower opinion of Segura than I should have and I generally seem to run a season behind on AL prospect lists. I guess that's a pretty decent haul.
   256. JJ1986 Posted: July 27, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4194174)
Hard to believe the White Sox weren't more involved if that was the price.


They don't have any prospects.
   257. bfan Posted: July 27, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4194193)
Braves would have given up their 2,4 and 9 prospects, and thrown in 10, too.
   258. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4194202)
Fair enough. But in maintaining his unnecessarily selfish (IMO, of course) position, over only a couple months (not to mention a chance at a title), Dempster should make sure his reasons are sufficient to accept whatever disapproval comes his way from Cubs fans.

And the Cubs aren't being selfish? The Cubs crafted a team that was guaranteed to suck and their plan was to trade their chits in at some point for players that they could control for the next handful of years. How is that being fair to Dempster? How isn't that being selfish and how isn't that shafting the veterans on the Cubs? Work hard guys and in a few months we're going to subject you to a media frenzy over trade rumors and then uproot you from the life you have known for many years.


Well, Dempster has undoubtedly gotten a lot of contributions and support based on his celebrity and the goodwill he has built up. If his decision damages that goodwill, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander


Suck it, cancer #######!
   259. rb's team is hopeful for the new year! Posted: July 27, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4194205)
Braves would have given up their 2,4 and 9 prospects, and thrown in 10, too.

No way do they send chipper to milwaukee in that deal.
   260. Brian C Posted: July 27, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4194211)
what's good for the goose is good for the gander

This phrase means something other than the way you are using it here.
   261. The District Attorney Posted: July 27, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4194213)
The Cub clubhouse water cooler is the greatest ongoing storyline in sports.
   262. Esoteric Posted: July 27, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4194222)
The Cub clubhouse water cooler is the greatest ongoing storyline in sports.
I'm surprised a social worker hasn't attempted to put it in a foster home on account of all the physical abuse.
   263. bfan Posted: July 27, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4194230)
No way do they send chipper to milwaukee in that deal.


very good. On the other hand, maybe they want him to end his career in the City where he started.
   264. salviaman Posted: July 28, 2012 at 07:25 AM (#4194380)
McCoy/#258, I know that teams do what is in their best interest. But it's not the same for a player on a team. The player, while he is on a team, is expected to do what is best for the team. That is the sentiment that has been around for a century, and is still deemed the correct attitude for a player (and soldier) to have.

So IMO Dempster's selfishness and the Cubs selfishness are not equivalent.

And sure he has the right to block the trade, but the fans and writers should certainly let him know that 'there is no I in team".
   265. SoSH U at work Posted: July 28, 2012 at 09:41 AM (#4194408)

McCoy/#258, I know that teams do what is in their best interest. But it's not the same for a player on a team. The player, while he is on a team, is expected to do what is best for the team. That is the sentiment that has been around for a century, and is still deemed the correct attitude for a player (and soldier) to have.

So IMO Dempster's selfishness and the Cubs selfishness are not equivalent.

And sure he has the right to block the trade, but the fans and writers should certainly let him know that 'there is no I in team".


If anything summarizes why I think the Dempster bashers are insane*, this is it. It's all right for the Cubs (and by extension, their fans) to be selfish because they have some theoretical baseball games to win down the road. But Ryan Dempster, on a decision that only affects where he's going to live and work for the next 60 days, well he's got to get over that self-centered attitude right quick.

And, of course, it ignores the fact that why should Ryan Dempster want to make the team that's trading him away better? If he's getting dumped, shouldn't he only be thinking of what's good for his next team?

* Don't get me wrong, I think fans of a lot of teams would do the exact same thing. The insanity isn't limited to the north side.
   266. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4194419)
If anything summarizes why I think the Dempster bashers are insane*, this is it. It's all right for the Cubs (and by extension, their fans) to be selfish because they have some theoretical baseball games to win down the road. But Ryan Dempster, on a decision that only affects where he's going to live and work for the next 60 days, well he's got to get over that self-centered attitude right quick.

Do you think this reaction would be the same if Dempster said all along that he would refuse any trades anywhere?
   267. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4194421)
I think it would be different, but not by much. Obviously, there wouldn't have been a specific trade worked out with a specific prospect coming back for fans to be disappointed about, but I think there still would have been the talk radio "selfish bastard" chatter.
   268. SoSH U at work Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4194424)
Do you think this reaction would be the same if Dempster said all along that he would refuse any trades anywhere?


No, probably not*. But I think a lot of Cubs fans have convinced themselves that Dempster never had any intention of ever playing for the Braves and that he led the Cubs on**, rather than the more benign explanation that he simply had a change of heart the closer the deal came to reality (either because of something about Atlanta or the fact that LA became a more realistic destination in his mind to the point that going elsewhere was no longer appealing). I suppose one needs a villain when his hopes get dashed, so he just looks around until he finds one.

The point is, this is a decision that, believer it or not, really only affects Ryan Dempster. His life is not equal to a few unproductive hours for Theo and Jed (who will spend many unproductive hours on their own) or Cubs' fans temporary lifted spirits. That's the calculation a lot of fans seem to be missing. If we don't think Ryan Dempster is justified in being selfish about a decision that affects him considerably more than it affects anyone else (well, other than Delgado), then it might be time to question our priorities.

* Though you'd still hear some grumbling. Don't ever underestimate the capacity for sports fans to lack perspective.

** Why he would do this is never fully explained.
   269. McCoy Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4194433)
If Dempster had said from the beginning that he would not accept any trades at all he would have gotten skewered the whole season long instead of merely getting all of the hate focused on him over a few days. So while it wouldn't be as intense it would still be there every single day like a toothache.
   270. base ball chick Posted: July 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4194491)
264. salviaman Posted: July 28, 2012 at 07:25 AM (#4194380)

McCoy/#258, I know that teams do what is in their best interest. But it's not the same for a player on a team. The player, while he is on a team, is expected to do what is best for the team. That is the sentiment that has been around for a century, and is still deemed the correct attitude for a player (and soldier) to have.


wow

just wow

a baseball player is no more a soldier than a plumber who works for a plumbing company is. i never stop being amazed at how people really REALLY think the old reserve clause rules should still apply and a player who has any interest in his own life is A Bad Guy.

where are all these public statements from dempster that he would accept a trade to ANY contender from BEFORE the atlanta trade was publically announced?
   271. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 28, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4194513)
where are all these public statements from dempster that he would accept a trade to ANY contender from BEFORE the atlanta trade was publically announced?

He didn't say any contender, but he had given preliminary indications to Cubs management that he would accept a trade to the Braves. That's one reason why they Cubs were negotiating with the Braves.
   272. base ball chick Posted: July 28, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4194567)
dag

i don't know what "preliminary indications" exactly means. i have seen teams work trades behind players backs then try to force them into agreeing.

has dempster himself said on the record that he agreed in any way then changed his mine? i know ALL about "sources"
   273. Andere Richtingen Posted: July 28, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4194590)
I'm still not holding this against Dempster. I don't think any of us know exactly what he indicated to the FO about potential trades to the Braves. Even if he indicated one thing and then changed his mind, I don't have a problem with it. Is it Dempster's job to carefully scope out every potential trade destination beforehand and decide whether or not it's to his liking? No, it is not, and his five and ten rights guarantee that. So Atlanta doesn't sound so bad at first, and then he thinks about it, maybe talks to some people, and it doesn't sound so great anymore. And for a guy with little kids, one of them with a serious medical issue, changing teams for two months, on top of not knowing where he will be next season, is a big deal. Could he have handled this better? Probably, but it's really not his job to be managing his own trade.
   274. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 28, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4194593)
bbc - I'm not sure Dempster has said anything on the record, aside from his one tweet.
Page 3 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
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3314 - 3:51pm, Sep 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(176 - 3:50pm, Sep 19)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogRon Washington Acknowledges Infidelity, Doesn’t Explain Why He Resigned
(47 - 3:47pm, Sep 19)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-18-2014
(159 - 3:33pm, Sep 19)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(76 - 3:08pm, Sep 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(23 - 3:02pm, Sep 19)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(833 - 2:53pm, Sep 19)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2014
(31 - 2:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogUmpire ejects Braves fan for heckling Bryce Harper
(69 - 2:42pm, Sep 19)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(55 - 1:54pm, Sep 19)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(63 - 1:40pm, Sep 19)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(59 - 1:23pm, Sep 19)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogIt’s quite the turnaround for Angels and General Manager Jerry Dipoto
(11 - 1:19pm, Sep 19)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogKeri: How Washington Built a World Series Favorite
(39 - 1:10pm, Sep 19)
Last: Danny

NewsblogAraton: The Other Side of a Derek Jeter Hustle Play
(25 - 1:04pm, Sep 19)
Last: Greg K

Page rendered in 0.7600 seconds
52 querie(s) executed