Bleacher Bums Forum

That's not too bad for a reliever that should be a big part of our pen.

I dont see how a lot of people can complain about this.

Got to think the Marmol trade is coming soon.  Who needs a closer?  ....

I'm delighted that they were able to sign Fuji.  He's been a good pitcher, and I think he could pitch effectively for us.  Beats me, maybe his age and stuff won't hold up and he'll be not that good.  But I'm glad to take a shot at a guy who at least has a shot to be pretty good.  Why not hope that he'll work out and be good?  And, even if they didn't sign him with the purpose of trading him, that possibility will still exist. 

But I'm not sure this means a Marmol trade is coming.  I don't think they're going to trade him if they don't get real prospect(s) back.  Certainly Marmol could be traded if they get a good offer.  But Marmol has a substantial salary and has been scary wild.  So I'm not sure the demand is very substantial.   Hoyer's comment was that they didn't have enough good relievers, which put too much pressure on the three that they had.  To sign Fuji only to dump Marmol would just get you right back to three.  I don't assume that Fuji was promised to close.  If he's good, and Marmol is wild, Fuji may well win that job.  But it wouldn't surprise me if he was promised nothing, and his agent simply evaluated the landscape and thought he'd have his best chance this way.  But if the Cubs don't get a really good offer for Marmol, and if Marmol doesn't pitch himself out of the job, perhaps Fuji will function as a setup guy. 

Also true that Marmol's best years were as a setup.  Might not be the worst thing if he returned to that role.  He might actually be better, and perhaps he'd be more tradable in that role than as a closer. 

Yes, Marmol is a free agent after the year.

Usually, it helps to consider the context, rather than to deconstruct what is obviously a poorly worded statement.

Tried telling him that before, with the Puerto Rico mid-statement in trivia. It's like trying to teach algebra to an eggplant.

Usually, it helps to consider the context, rather than to deconstruct what is obviously a poorly worded statement.

The only way is it "obviously a poorly worded statement," is if you assume it to be one.

It makes every bit as much sense to read it as I did, and, considering the wide variation in performance often seen among relievers from one year to the next, and the fact that the 2013 Cubs are not going to be contending, it is also an approach which would make more sense than spending heavily on relievers this winter.  Two of the three relievers he mentioned having done well in 2012 (Camp and Russell) were little more than arms thrown into the mix, without a great deal of certainty they would come close to doing as well as they did.  Before 2012, Russell had never had a major league season with an ERA as good as the league average, and he had not exactly dominated in the minors, and Camp was entering the season as a 36 year old who had an ERA of 4.21 in 2011.

Those are NOT "good arms" when they were seen as possible relievers for 2012.  They were part of a collection of arms offered to Sveum to sort thru.

I would guess that the principal difference for 2013 will be that there will be even more of them for him to sort thru for 2013.

I look at the wording, look at the situation, and look at the track record (those things you might call context) and take it to mean they will look to add a "good number of arms."

You call that "deconstructing."

You look at the wording, project on it what it seems you would like it to mean, and truly ignore the context, and take it to mean the Cubs will look to add "a number of good arms.

I call that wishful thinking.

The only way is it "obviously a poorly worded statement," is if you assume it to be one.

The only way it is NOT a poorly worded statement is if you are more concerned with playing "gotcha" than in communicating.

The Angels were willing to trade for Marmol.  And they were willing to give up a fair amount.