Bleacher Bums Forum
General Category => Archives => Topic started by: Dave23 on July 26, 2012, 09:26:12 am
-
Your thoughts on Dempster...
-
We should withhold judgement until all of the details are known...
-
I voted for 3 but just as easily could have voted for 1, with a little bit of 4 thrown in too. To me, both #1 and #3 apply pretty equally.
I do agree we don't know all of the facts yet, and something could come out that he misled the Cubs on his willingness to go to Atlanta. Still, innocent until proven guilty applies, and even knowing most of what we know now, though, I don't even really think he's guilty of anything.
-
I guess that's the crux of my argument on Dempster's side all along. He has 10/5 rights that he's earned and he has a right to steer the trade discussion to the best destination for him possible. And quite frankly, after reading his comments about the "hammer", I don't even think he's been dishonest with the fans about his intentions. He said he was going to be looking out for himself in this thing, and he's not a bad person for wanting to so. After all, if he's not looking after his best interests in this, who is?
Unfortunately Dempster's interests don't 100% coincide with the best interests of my favorite baseball team. I wish they did, but I respect the fact that they don't. It doesn't make Dempster a bad person or unreasonably selfish that they don't.
-
Voted for #4. Would have liked to vote for #3 and to some extent #1 as well. But #4 is the most compelling to me.
-
What a disappointment.... I thought this topic was going to be where Deeg and jiggs would post their offers to find a hitman to take out Dempster....
-
There are more people fighting the good fight than I thought.
-
I'm pissed at dempster.
-
Definitely #4.
-
Well said, JR. I'm with you.
-
Heh, all four seem to apply to me. Definitely #2. He certainly indicated that he'd be traded, there's strong indication that he communicated with Theo/Hoyer that Atlanta was pretty positive. Sure seems to me that he misled management and is very deserving of criticism for doing that. We can wonder how badly he misled management, but we know he very much misled the fans. Bonk bonk. That said, #4 applies (who knows what other layers apply), #3 applies (he had the right, so can't fault him for that). But rights don't make it right to mislead.
-
All of them, but mostly 4. Like P2, I agree with what JR said, but a part of me feels some of #2 as well.
-
I voted for #2. There's all sorts of evidence that Theo and Jed had in-depth conversations with Dempster, then built their entire trade deadline strategy around his expressed wishes. Whether he lied from the outset, got cold feet or just felt like being the hammer doesn't matter to me. He said he'd do what was best for the Cubs, then didn't. I have no respect for Ryan Dempster. He doesn't deserve to be a Chicago Cub.
-
I voted for #2. There's all sorts of evidence that Theo and Jed had in-depth conversations with Dempster, then built their entire trade deadline strategy around his expressed wishes. Whether he lied from the outset, got cold feet or just felt like being the hammer doesn't matter to me. He said he'd do what was best for the Cubs, then didn't. I have no respect for Ryan Dempster. He doesn't deserve to be a Chicago Cub.
That would be a defensible position if we knew that Dempster had gone back on what he said. But the fact is, no one here knows what Dempster said to Theo and Jed. Again, for all we know, he told them that he'd be likely to go to any of several contenders, but would wait until the deadline after all conversations with the Dodgers had been exhausted before he'd accept another deal. Until we have anything that remotely indicates Dempster told the front office that he'd immediately accept any offer they presented to him, I think you have to make huge, possibly incorrect assumptions to decide he lied or went back on his word.
I selected option #4, because we just don't have the information to make the judgment that he went back on his word. But #3 is also a good choice, because the statements to the media that we do have left it vague as to whether or not he'd reject a trade. I don't blame the media (it's not their fault someone on the Braves side failed to keep their mouth shut).
-
He doesn't deserve to be a Chicago Cub.
Well, I would have to agree there.
The guy deserves to be on a winner, and I suspect that he will be, and that will not be the Cubs.
-
I went with # 2 there is no way the cubs make a deal with alt and not think he would go there.
-
I went with # 2 there is no way the cubs make a deal with alt and not think he would go there.
Why not?
-
Bleacher Nation's take on what Dave Kaplan had to say:
The gist is, the Cubs thought they had an understanding with Dempster that they could negotiating with either the Braves or Dodgers, and then they got a better offer from the Braves. When Dempster through up a roadblock (albeit possibly temporary), asking the Cubs to try once more with the Dodgers, the Braves pulled their offer so they could explore other options. And that’s where we stand, as the Cubs try to get an acceptable deal from the Dodgers. The Cubs, Kap says, are trying to net a “handful” of pitching prospects, which suggests they will generally be of a lesser tier than Delgado.
If this is accurate, what Dempster did was not objectionable. Had the Braves MLB.com writer not made the yet to be completed deal public, there would be no criticism of Demp's actions.
-
Had the Braves MLB.com writer not made the yet to be completed deal public, there would be no criticism of Demp's actions.
Absolutely. But the writer wouldn't have even known about it without someone in the Braves FO leaking the info. I'm still curious about that and wondering whether it was deliberate. Probably they just thought the deal was done, though.
-
Meanwhile, just to demonstrate how totally reliable internet rumors are, after (I believe more than) one report that the Dodgers had offered Webster straight up for Dempster, with the Cubs balking, Jon Heyman now claims just the opposite - that the Cubs made that offer, with the Dodgers refusing.
Who's on first?
Heyman also says he's told Dempster told Braves player he'd accept trade, but changed his mind. As always, all of these reports should be consumed with a very healthy dose of sea salt.
Hoping Kaplan's rumors trump the national guys.
-
I don't recall anyone saying outright that the Dodgers offered Webster for Dempster - only suggesting it as an alternative. There's no reason to suspect the Dodgers would have done so anyway, after Dempster destroyed the Cubs bargaining position.
-
I don't recall anyone saying outright that the Dodgers offered Webster for Dempster - only suggesting it as an alternative. There's no reason to suspect the Dodgers would have done so anyway, after Dempster destroyed the Cubs bargaining position.
I thought I saw this more than one place, but perhaps I was wrong. Here is one spot, and I must say that I have no reason to assume that Cubs Den is likely to have a great source on this.
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/07/source-dodgers-willing-to-trade-webster-or-reed-but-only-straight-up-for-dempster/
-
I'd keep the salt handy. You're going to need quite a bit of it.
-
Just reported that Cubs asked for Webster which was rejected - Dodgers offered "two lesser prospects that project as relievers". This is not going to end well..........
-
It certainly isn't starting well.
-
Feeling more #2 all the time.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
*Update* Dodgers do not want to put Allen Webster in the deal and the package that they are offering is very suspect.Cubs will not cave.
David Kaplan @thekapman
It would be a very uncomfortable situation if Dempster is still on roster after trade deadline. Can't believe either side wants that.
Not encouraging. Not sure why, but some reason I find myself trusting Kaplan more than most reporters on this subject. Maybe because he was the first to raise the red flag after a bevy of reports that the Braves deal was done.
-
What choice does Theo have? As bad as it would be to have Dempster on the roster, better that than give him away for scraps and be seen as caving to a player who stabbed him in the back. Make a QO and hope he turns it down, then hope someone is willing to sign him. If Dempster doesn't feel comfortable with that he only has himself to blame.
-
Feeling more #2 all the time.
As Cubs fans, I think we all feel like #2 most of the time.
-
Why would it be bad to have Dempster on the roster? if they can't get something quite good for him, then keep him and offer him a qualifying amount this winter. If he refuses, we get a draft choice. If he accepts, we have him for another year, and might be able to trade him this winter or next summer.
-
Why would it be bad to have Dempster on the roster? if they can't get something quite good for him, then keep him and offer him a qualifying amount this winter. If he refuses, we get a draft choice. If he accepts, we have him for another year, and might be able to trade him this winter or next summer.
Yeah, when the booing gets to Dempster, we can send him and the balance of his 2013 salary to the Dodgers for table scraps (if they still want him).
-
So if ATL doesnt get another SP, before Demp is dealt, you think Delgado is still on the table?
-
Greinke's going to get traded so there's another arm in the way of any Dempster or Garza deal.
-
So if ATL doesnt get another SP, before Demp is dealt, you think Delgado is still on the table?
No way Delgado is still on the table. Wren is almost as pissed at this double-cross as Theo.
-
Greinke's going to get traded so there's another arm in the way of any Dempster or Garza deal.
Greineke is going to cost a whole lot more than Dempster or Garza, so while he's certainly a factor, it's sort of apples and oranges.
-
What a disappointment.... I thought this topic was going to be where Deeg and jiggs would post their offers to find a hitman to take out Dempster....
This is not going to end well.
-
Grienke will NOT cost a whole lot more than Garza. Grienke is a rental. Garza has the extra year of control and the comp pick.
-
Bruce Miles is much admired here, appropriately so. He's not a shill for anyone, he's not out to create controversy or a splash, and he's not a bandwagon jumper, like so many writers are. He has what I consider a very thoughtful and balanced article on the Dempster situation.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120726/sports/707269631/ (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120726/sports/707269631/)
-
Grienke will NOT cost a whole lot more than Garza. Grienke is a rental. Garza has the extra year of control and the comp pick.
I should have said cost more than Dempster. My mistake. No idea how Garza stacks up against Greineke - given that deal for Greineke could include an extension.
-
Dempster's bad luck that Garza was taken out of the picture when he was. If the Cubs could have substituted Garza for Dempster, getting a haul from LA in the process, people would still be upset with Dempster, but not as upset as now with the possibility of not being able to make good trades for either Dempster or Garza.
Hopefully, we'll have a pleasant surprise or two by Tuesday. Fingers crossed (toes too).
-
Dodgers don't have the prospects to get Garza
-
Is anyone else deeply ambivelent about trading Garza? Say you could get Lee and Webster from the Dodgers for him...maybe, in 3 years, one of them is almost as good as Garza is now.
Frankly given his age and contract status and stuff, I'd prefer the Cubs just kept him (unless his personality is annoying as hell to his teammates, which seems possible).
-
Dempster's bad luck that Garza was taken out of the picture when he was.
What did I miss?
How was Garza taken out of the picture?
-
His injury probably caused other teams to be cautious, at least for now.
-
While comparing the Dempster situation to the Maddux situation is silly to begin with, it's interesting that Miles - who indeed is normally the best of the Cubs beat writers - had some factual errors in there, whatever you think of his opinion. Most glaring is that Dempster didn't scuttle a deal "for a AAA prospect". Delgado is a major-league pitcher.
-
Is anyone else deeply ambivelent about trading Garza? Say you could get Lee and Webster from the Dodgers for him...maybe, in 3 years, one of them is almost as good as Garza is now.
Frankly given his age and contract status and stuff, I'd prefer the Cubs just kept him (unless his personality is annoying as hell to his teammates, which seems possible).
I see no reason to trade Garza now at a discount. If he pitches well for the rest of the season, trade him at full value over the winter. It wouldn't be as much as we'd hoped, but it'd still be more than what we'd get trading him as an injury risk now.
-
Jim Bowden chimes in on Dempster:
@JimBowdenESPNxm
Jason Vargas trade value climbs...James Shields declines while Dempster to Dodgers progresses
Given that it's coming from Bowden, all hopes for deal with Dodgers dashed. ;)
-
If we trade Garza this winter, does he still retain the benefit to his new team of having a comp pick attached to him?
-
If we trade Garza this winter, does he still retain the benefit to his new team of having a comp pick attached to him?
Isn't the wording in the CBA such that his new team would get a comp pick?
-
That's what I'm asking/hoping.
-
Brenly said on the radio today that he believes Dempster said no because he was offended that he didn't hear about it from Theo before twitter.
-
If Garza is traded in the off-season, his new team would be eligible for a compensatory draft pick. If he's traded on or after Opening Day next year, they would not.
-
Thanks Cubsin, I thought so. Trading Garza over the winter makes the most sense - all the more so if the Cubs are reduced to either keeping Demp or just getting an extra pick.
It seems as if the focus should turn to trading Maholm now. Maybe the Dodgers would give us Gould for him.
-
Doug Padilla (1:22 PM)
As I mentioned on the radio an hour ago, the deadline becomes the Cubs' biggest ally to get a better deal. The Dodgers will play the game and try to low ball the Cubs to see if they panic. If they don't, the Dodgers will be forced to make a better offer as the deadline draws near. Unless, of course, they've moved on to a different deal. Multiple games of chicken going on now.
-
FWIW, Kaplan is reporting on his post-game TV show that he's hearing that Dempster is supposed to be open to trade possibilities from other teams (besides Dodgers and Braves), at this point. Said that the deal with the Braves may have just come too early for Dempster, in terms of giving up on the Dodgers having a chance to improve their offer to the Cubs.
Hollandsworth doesn't think there's any chance of Dempster going to the Braves at this point. Thinks the Braves don't want to be a "rebound" team. Hard for me to believe that they care about something like that when it comes to a rental player who is there to get them to the playoffs.
-
FWIW, here's Kaplan with his report on Dempster's current posture, and the timing issue of the Braves deal.
After talking with some well-informed sources this afternoon, it appears that the Cubs may have more possibilities than just the Los Angeles Dodgers to trade Ryan Dempster to. According to people with knowledge of the discussions, Dempster is willing to consider other teams than the Dodgers but as is his right he wants time to consider his options before giving his approval to a trade.
“Ryan is willing to look at any opportunity that the Cubs bring to him but in the end he has 10 and 5 rights and he will use them to veto a trade he is not comfortable with,” the source said.
Sources also confirmed to me today that Dempster has not told Cubs management that he will only play for the Los Angeles Dodgers. His position appears to be that he will consider any option that sends him to a team with a chance to win a World Series. The sticking point with the original deal with Atlanta was the fact that by making the trade early in the week it eliminated any chance for LA to increase its offer and Dempster wanted time to give the Dodgers a chance to increase their proposal so that he could play out west and with Ted Lilly.
Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer according to two formers GM’s who have negotiated against them in the past will not cave in just to make a deal. If the Dodgers do not increase their offer the Cubs may engage in serious talks with several other teams in the market for starting pitching and if they can find an acceptable deal they would then present that opportunity to Dempster. As we draw closer to the July 31st deadline the Cubs will find out just how serious the 35 year old Dempster is about wanting to pitch in a pennant race this fall.
-
I like the idea of approaching the Rangers with both Garza and Dempster. Texas has a deep farm system and all but said anyone except Profar is available in a deal.
-
How many of the prospects in their deep system would Texas trade for a rental and an injured dude?
-
I suppose that would depend upon who the injured dude was, and whether or not they thought the injury was serious.
-
If Demp is open to more teams now, that may also have something to do with fan reaction to the rejected Braves deal.
As others have said, it would be very awkward for him to stay with Chicago at this point.
-
But what teams will be open to him?
-
How many of the prospects in their deep system would Texas trade for a rental and an injured dude?
The concern over the "injured dude" can be addressed by using PTBNL from different lists depending on how quickly Garza returns.
-
We'll all be glad when the trading deadline gets here and when the drama around Dempster is past, I think. But the more I read about other teams and their options, I do wonder if the Cubs are in as bad a bargaining position as has been assumed here.
This presumes that the recent report that Dempster is open to accepting a trade to a team other than the Dodgers (including the Braves), when it gets closer to the deadline is accurate. IF that's true, the Cubs could end up still making a good deal for him. The Marlins are apparently asking for the moon for their pitchers. Liriano is available but he hasn't had below a 5.0 ERA since 2010. Dempster sure seems to be the best available starting pitcher, far and away, even as a rental. With the Braves, Dodgers, Rangers, Nationals and White Sox all looking for starting pitching, so long as Dempster becomes more flexible, the Cubs may do just fine.
-
Lee may very well be available, and Shields certainly is.
-
Lee may very well be available, and Shields certainly is.
Jon Heyman claims that the Rays want more for Shields than the Brewers got for Greinke.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/19676351/rangers-dodgers-braves-indians-in-mix-for-shields (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/19676351/rangers-dodgers-braves-indians-in-mix-for-shields)
-
Meanwhile Danny Knobler says that "people in baseball" have started thinking Dempster could still end up with the Braves. There's a source ("people in baseball") you can rely on.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/danny-knobler/19677669/could-dempster-still-land-with-braves?-some-still-think-he-will (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/danny-knobler/19677669/could-dempster-still-land-with-braves?-some-still-think-he-will)
-
They should want more for Shields. He's not a rental.
The Greinke return both legitimizes the Delgado return for Demp and puts further pressure on the Dodgers.
It's going to be hilarious to watch them limp towards the playoffs with their current rotation (sans Eovaldi). They HAVE to make a move.
Deal Demp to the Braves for Delgado, then tell LA the price for Garza is Lee and Webster. What are they going to do? Pay MORE for Shields?
-
Eight shutout innings for Mike Minor against the Phillies tonight. That's 4 straight very good starts for him. I'd have no problem taking him back in a Dempster deal if Delgado is off the table.
-
I'd be surprised if we hear anything serious about Dempster unless and until there is actually a deal finalized. Suspect the Cubs are going be very insistent about silence by people with whom the have discussions. That's not to say there won't be commentators chiming in - it's what they do, and speculation will fill the void. Bowden's tweet is a good example.
I'm guessing we won't know anything until Tuesday, tonight at the earliest.
Meanwhile the Marlins have reportedly decided not to trade Johnson and the cost to teams interested in Clif Lee (money as well talent) would presumably make him a non factor. Just a little over 25 hours to go to the deadline.
-
Eight shutout innings for Mike Minor against the Phillies tonight. That's 4 straight very good starts for him. I'd have no problem taking him back in a Dempster deal if Delgado is off the table.
Not Minor by himself...I'd have to get at least one other prospect back
-
...at this point, jacey...
-
Hard to believe that both the Dodgers and Braves will stand pat with their rotations.
Braves supposedly not interested in anyone who would not be top 3 in rotation for playoffs. Isn't Dempster the only practical option, if he consents to a trade now that the deadline approaches? Dodgers wanted to improve their rotation before losing one member in trade.
Interesting scenarios.
-
Lilly is about to come off the DL.
Atlanta was on a winning streak which can often cloud reality.
-
Lilly is about to come off the DL.
Atlanta was on a winning streak which can often cloud reality.
Dodgers still need another pitcher though.
-
If I'm the Dodgers, I have Kershaw, Billingsley, Capuano, Harang, and Lilly coming off the DL. In post season, they only need 3.
I don't think they feel they MUST have another pitcher. It would be great to get someone as good as Dempster, but...
-
The Dodgers are going to be in a dogfight to win the West. Dempster could be key for them.
-
Do they have to win the West?
-
If the Cub front office IS upset with Dempster, they should just trade for Lilly. That would be hilarious.
-
Wild card is a real crapshoot, Curt. It would be huge for the Dodgers to win the West.
-
I think the Dodgers can get by without trading for a starter. But the Braves have no choice but to add one. They can't really count on the health of Sheets, Hudson, or Hanson. And they can't count on performance from Minor, Jurrjens, or Medlen. They don't have a single pitcher in their rotation who profiles as really reliable.
If we get within an hour or two of the deadline and it becomes clear the Dodgers aren't an option for Dempster, the Cubs are going to have the leverage to get something good from the Braves.
-
If I'm the Dodgers, I have Kershaw, Billingsley, Capuano, Harang, and Lilly coming off the DL
And Dempster is better than any of the five.
-
LOL
-
Patrick Mooney @CSNMooney
Dempster doesn't expect trade happening today, waiting to see what front office brings him tomorrow, but says that could change on the hour.
This should further endear Dempster to fans who are already upset with him.
-
Dempster will probably go out to lunch tomorrow at an undisclosed location, then turn off his cell phone so he doesn't have to leave Chicago.
-
Obviously everything being tweeted about the Cubs being in the process of caving in to the Dodgers is accurate, just as this tweet from Buster Olney is.
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN
Alfonso Soriano has been part of Ryan Dempster talks for days, but there hasn't been any recent dialogue between LAD/Cubs.
Hand me the sea salt, please.
-
Wendy's puts sea salt on their french fries now.
I like it.
-
Contrary to Buster Olney, Ken Rosenthal continues to insist that the Dodgers and Cubs are still talking about a deal involving Dempster & Soriano. Do the Dodgers have any interesting young position players that could be included in a deal (such as 3B?).
-
One interesting thing the Dodgers could do is eat a ton of Soriano's salary. If the Cubs could get them to somehow eat $16-18 million of his remaining contract, that could be just as important to our future as obtaining a premium prospect would.
Why? Are you expecting Theo to be a big spender in the next two years, when the Cubs won't be contending?
I'd love to be rid of some of Soriano's contract, but given that he's played at an acceptable level this season the incentive to deal him strictly as a salary dump is limited. Who else are we spending money on for the next two seasons? Even is Soriano reverts to terrible I don't see how his salary is a major obstacle to anything Theo plans to do. Pay the whole contract if it nets you a decent prospect in return.
-
Disagree. Cubs have shown they are willing to pay money in exchange for improving quality of trade return. Can't see them changing that approach.
-
It was just a thought. I very seriously doubt the Dodgers will want to be on the hook for even that much of Soriano's remaining contract anyway.
Still, while the Cubs have usually been willing to eat an entire contract in return for a better return in players, that's almost always been for a one year commitment or a partial year commitment. I imagine getting 50% or more of Soriano's remaining contract through 2014 off the books would be a totally different matter and probably one where they would be willing to take a sacrifice in talent.
And while Theo might still be looking at 2014 as a rebuild year, that's probably when they'd at least like to start making a move to b eing competitive again. An extra $9 million might be a useful thing to have going into that season. Also, most prospects fail and won't ever be worth close to $16-18 million in value, so that's also something to be said for guaranteeing a locked in $16-18 million in savings if by some chance the Dodgers could be talked into that.
An extra $18 million between 2013 and 2014 also makes re-signing Garza look a lot more attractive.
-
.... start making a move to b eing competitive again....
Doncha love it when Dave23 and Curt think they are cute?
On the substantive point, just as a PTBNL can be determined based on after-trade the performance of another player in the deal, it would seem that the amount of salary a team pays of a Soriano-style contract could be based on how he does for the new team, making it a bit more attractive to the team taking on the large contract.
-
I think that the amount of cash has to be determined at the time of the deal.
-
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-news/Kaplan-Trio-of-suitors-for-Dempster?blockID=748937&feedID=8487
-
Does forty votes sound about right?
What are your thoughts re: Ryan Dempster?
The media started a firestorm and he got caught in the middle, give him a break! 1 (2.5%)
He put Atlanta on his list and should have gone there, he's a bum! 16 (40%)
He is only exercising his hard-earned bargaining rights, cut him some slack! 7 (17.5%)
We should withhold judgement until all of the details are known... 16 (40%)
Total Members Voted: 40
-
Get over it.
I've got to agree with that. We got the #9 prospect from the 2nd ranked farm system in baseball and a BA Top 100 prospect in Villenueva and a guy in Hendricks with a 112:15 strikeout to walk ratio who probably would have been a Top 15-20 prospect in their system after this season.
Is it better than Randall Delgado? Probably not, but it's still a very respectable package. At the very least Dempster opened the trade market for himself when it was obvious the Dodgers weren't going to step up and make a fair offer. And for Dempster, he gets to pitch for a two time World Series team and is reunited with Soto, so that might arguably be a better situation for him than Atlanta. That's what a 10/5 guy has a right to do, to get himself into the best personal situation he can, and he managed to do that while we got a respectable package in return for him.
Time for the Dempster hate to stop.
-
What JR said.
-
yep...
-
Agreed, JR. It ain't likely to happen though.
-
I'm with JR
-
Texas package was about on par with Gould - quite mediocre. Dempster s crewed us over - don't know why that's so hard to accept.
-
Dempster was exercizing his rights and doing what he perceived to be the right thing for him. I don't know why that's so hard to accept.
-
As a 10/5 player, Dempster had every right to veto any trade he didn't want to accept. But that doesn't give him the right to lie to fans (I'll accept a trade to a contender to help the Cubs) or the front office (Atlanta's my #2 choice).
-
Im just glad the mother fucker is gone.
-
All of this helps to underscore why you now so seldom have players stay with one team their entire career.
Not just FA, and salary structures, but the need to move someone before they become a 5/10 player.
-
I agree we just need to get over Demp, but I don't think there's any way to spin this deal as being anything remotely close to Delgado. That just is what it is.
-
I agree we just need to get over Demp, but I don't think there's any way to spin this deal as being anything remotely close to Delgado. That just is what it is.
Can't argue with that but keep in mind that we don't get Vizcaino from Braves if Dempster traded to Braves earlier. Will be interesting to see how Vizcaino pans out compared to Delgado down the road. Of course, we will never know what Cubs might have received elsewhere for Maholm.
-
Keith Law says he'd take Vizcaino over Delgado by a mile.
-
Keith Law says he'd take Vizcaino over Delgado by a mile.
I would, too.
-
Practically every publication had Delgado and Vizcaino 2-3 behind Teheran going into the season, and it seems to have been about evenly split who was higher. It's probably fair to say Vizcaino had the higher upside, and Delgado seemed like the safer bet.
Since then, Delgado has pitched acceptably in the Majors and Vizcaino has gone under the knife, so anyone backing Delgado certainly had no reason to change their mind.
-
If it's debatable whether Delgado or Vizcaino is a better asset and you can only have one, then why any lament that the Delgado deal fell apart?
Then, it boils down to whether Cubs would have effectively got more than the Rangers duo for Maholm and Johnson, no? That is probably also debatable.
-
Again, there's no way to know what the Cubs would have gotten for Maholm and Johnson. But they would have had a full week to do something, and also more opportunity to explore deals with Garza.
Also, FWIW, their actions clearly show that both the Cubs and Braves obviously valued Delgado higher than Vizcaino. But what would they know?
-
If it's debatable whether Delgado or Vizcaino is a better asset and you can only have one, then why any lament that the Delgado deal fell apart?
Because it helps Deeg rationalize demonizing Dempster.
-
Speaking of Teheran, a friend of mine was a South American scout for the Cubs until a couple years ago. He told me he pushed really hard for the Cubs to sign Teheran and Jose Quintana of the Sox but was denied by the scout in South America as the head guy wanted Venezuelans since that what his home country.
-
Wow. That's interesting, and depressing, jhawk.
-
Im just glad the mother ****er is gone.
What Jiggy said.
-
Hoyer says that there was never any animosity between Dempster, Theo and him, that things were always amicable. Also says they would welcome him back in the future. (invitation to scoffers)
-
Speaking of Teheran, a friend of mine was a South American scout for the Cubs until a couple years ago. He told me he pushed really hard for the Cubs to sign Teheran and Jose Quintana of the Sox but was denied by the scout in South America as the head guy wanted Venezuelans since that what his home country.
That just doesn't make sense. Did the Cubs have a quota at that time on South American prospects? Or only a certain pool of funds available for South American prospects and even if great prospects were found they count not exceed it or use any of the budget for other prospects?
-
Hoyer says that there was never any animosity between Dempster, Theo and him, that things were always amicable. Also says they would welcome him back in the future. (invitation to scoffers)
Not according to Deeg.
And Deeg knows.
-
Clearly we will never know what Dempster really told management ahead of the deadline. If Hoyerstein were to come out and say that they were misled by Dempster in a significant way, I would jump on the anti-Dempster bandwagon. But that isn't going to happen regardless of what really occurred. So I prefer to respect what Dempster gave to the Cubs during his tenure and to wish him well with Texas.
-
That just doesn't make sense. Did the Cubs have a quota at that time on South American prospects? Or only a certain pool of funds available for South American prospects and even if great prospects were found they count not exceed it or use any of the budget for other prospects?
You have obviously never been in a high level budget fight with other portions of your large organization. There is a strong tendency to fight for what is best for YOUR part of the organization, rather than for what is best for the organization as a whole. The struggle is not merely for budget money, which is just another way of keeping score, but for the power, influence and status that comes along with it. Top management knows it, understands it, tries to mitigate it, but can not eliminate it.
I have no idea if there is any truth in the allegations, but from my experience with budget fights in the military, and three fairly large corporations over the past 50 years, it sounds quite plausible to me.
-
Jes,
The situation was one where the head S. American scout was from (or handling) Venezuela. He wanted to sign Venezuelans. It was a big power struggle. If other scouts were perceived to have a better ability to find, procure and sign talent it would lessen his standing.
I know the person who told me the situation as I coached his kid and got to know him pretty well. As a Cubs minor league nut we have had some great conversations. He is shocked that I (or anyone) knows about these kids.
For the record, my guy loves Oneri and considers him one of his closest friends.
-
Yes, I'm sure there's no chance Hoyer and Theo are taking the high road on this and not revealing what really happened. That's totally conclusive.
-
I agree that, if there was any frustration with Dempster, Theo and Jed aren't saying anything. Not suggesting there was frustration, just saying that our front office is too classy to air its dirty laundry. My guess is Theo learned a lot of what NOT to do during his time in Boston.
-
Dempster: I never turned down Braves deal
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/12394/dempster-i-never-turned-down-braves-deal?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/12394/dempster-i-never-turned-down-braves-deal?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
-
I think it's time to move this thread to the Rangers board.
-
It got leaked out that I said yes and then I said no. And even after I said no -- I never officially said no...
Uh-huh...
-
He couldn't possibly be trying to rehab his image in order to save the donations to his charitable foundation.
He lied and is changing his tune.
-
If you set aside the "he said, she said" portion of the argument - and we'll never know the full truth of that because Theo won't throw Dempster under the bus - the gist of Demp's argument seems to be "I was totally amenable to going anywhere to help the Cubs. I just wanted to wait till 3:55 on the 31st to see if the Dodgers would cave. So any trade that didn't happen isn't my fault, it's their fault for not being willing to wait." That's totally disingenuous on the face of it, and proves that for him this is really about trying to dick the Cubs around while still preserving his carefully cultivated nice guy image.
-
I think it's time to move this thread to the Rangers board.
Amen.
-
I think Demp's account sounds pretty reasonable.
Cubs traded him for Delgado. Demp said he needed time to approve it and wanted the Cubs to see if there was any potential with the Dodgers (that last part is an addition on my part that seems fair - it is consistent with reports and squares completely with what Hoyer and Demp have said). Braves weren't willing to wait, so they pulled offer off the table. Demp's indecision cost the Cubs the deal, but that's different from saying "I won't go to ATL."
-
If you set aside the "he said, she said" portion of the argument - and we'll never know the full truth of that because Theo won't throw Dempster under the bus - the gist of Demp's argument seems to be "I was totally amenable to going anywhere to help the Cubs. I just wanted to wait till 3:55 on the 31st to see if the Dodgers would cave. So any trade that didn't happen isn't my fault, it's their fault for not being willing to wait." That's totally disingenuous on the face of it, and proves that for him this is really about trying to dick the Cubs around while still preserving his carefully cultivated nice guy image.
Yep.
-
"We had explained to him for several days before we did that deal that it was going to be the Braves, that they were the most aggressive team," Hoyer said Wednesday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000.
That's probably the closest you're going to get to throwing Demp under the bus. Basically, he knew it was coming. He didn't tell them not to pursue it. And when it happened, he acted shocked and needed time to think about it.
-
I'm 30 years older than Theo, so I won't be around to read his memoirs even if they're published some day. But I'll be quite surprised if the Cubs re-sign Dempster and give him full no-trade rights.
-
Whether the Cubs pursue Dempster this winter may be a good clue as to the relationship or lack thereof. I have reason to believe they were planning on pursuing before the fiasco. As far as a no trade, I hope Theo doesn't give one of those to anybody.
-
I don't think Hoyer will be signing ANYONE and giving no-trade rights. It just seems to be his philosophy, and one I generally agree with.
-
Two things I don't ever want to see in another Cubs contract are no-trade clauses and player opt-outs midway through the deal.
-
Yawn
-
Comments from Theo:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-epstein-defends-dempster-on-atlanta-trade-fiasco-20120801,0,4673128.story
It seems reasonable to speculate that Dempster expected the Dodgers to cave in the end, and only when it became apparent that that was not going to happen did he agree to go elsewhere. Dempster clearly did not have the best interests of the Cubs in mind. But as Theo says, he might have done the same thing in Dempster's place.
-
If you set aside the "he said, she said" portion of the argument - and we'll never know the full truth of that because Theo won't throw Dempster under the bus - the gist of Demp's argument seems to be "I was totally amenable to going anywhere to help the Cubs. I just wanted to wait till 3:55 on the 31st to see if the Dodgers would cave. So any trade that didn't happen isn't my fault, it's their fault for not being willing to wait." That's totally disingenuous on the face of it, and proves that for him this is really about trying to dick the Cubs around while still preserving his carefully cultivated nice guy image.
deeg, you are off by almost a whole hour! As quoted from ben in the 2012 thread:
Heard Jed Hoyer interviewed on MLB radio network this morning...he said: * "Timing" was the problem re the Dempster deal with Atlanta not going down...rather than throw Dempster under the bus, Hoyer said that, while Dempster had given the ok to a trade to ATL, he had a strong preference for L.A. and wanted to wait to see if he could be dealt there...when the ATL deal came up well before the deadline, Dempster wouldn't agree to it as is his right...Braves didn't want to wait to see what might happen with L.A. When Cubs couldn't agree with L.A. yesterday (which was our right), Dempster caved to being traded to Texas or Yankees...that occurred about an hour before the trade deadline...the Texas deal came together in the last 60 minutes before the deadline.
-
So now both sides seem to be saying essentially what many of the Dempster "apologists" were saying here all last week...that he probably just wasn't willing to waive his 10/5 rights while the Dodgers were still a possibility, and that both sides realize there were timing issues. Neither side is indicating they felt lied to or that they were treated unfairly...just that the timing didn't work out.
-
Comments from Theo:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-epstein-defends-dempster-on-atlanta-trade-fiasco-20120801,0,4673128.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-epstein-defends-dempster-on-atlanta-trade-fiasco-20120801,0,4673128.story)
It seems reasonable to speculate that Dempster expected the Dodgers to cave in the end, and only when it became apparent that that was not going to happen did he agree to go elsewhere. Dempster clearly did not have the best interests of the Cubs in mind. But as Theo says, he might have done the same thing in Dempster's place.
Thanks for the link. Wow - Theo gives a very detailed description of the process involving Dempster, and it's quite different than it's been characterized by some here. Here's one segment that shows Theo was not operating under the belief that Dempster had already given his OK for a trade to the Braves before the negotiations with them.
“We consummated a deal with Atlanta quietly, and told Ryan ‘We have a deal, so you don’t have to decide right away, but keep thinking about it,’” he said. “That was a good conversation, and then the story leaked. And with the nature of technology and social media these days, these things obviously spread quickly, and like wildfire.”
Something tells me this won't make any difference with those who believe Dempster lied to the Cubs.
-
Ron, that coincides with what I was told that Theo was more livid with ATL for the leak than Dempster for not giving an immediate okay. But it's dead news.
-
Actually, that was a strikingly damning assessment from Epstein considering how careful he has to be in his public statements. But it's obvious that there's enough pride invested by those defending Demp that no matter how damning the info, it won't matter to them.
-
suggest getting a new dead horse to beat...
-
Actually, that was a strikingly damning assessment from Epstein considering how careful he has to be in his public statements. But it's obvious that there's enough pride invested by those defending Demp that no matter how damning the info, it won't matter to them.
Seriously? You've been saying all along that Theo would not have negotiated with the Braves if Dempster had not assured him that he would accept a trade to them. Nothing in Theo's statements are consistent with that. Quite the contrary.
Epstein said 2-3 days before the trade was reported on the Braves’ website, he told him Dempster to “start processing it,” because the L.A. deal was probably not going to happen. On July 22, Epstein told Dempster the team had to make a decision quickly or lose the chance to get Delgado.
The next morning, Epstein called Dempster again.
“We consummated a deal with Atlanta quietly, and told Ryan ‘We have a deal, so you don’t have to decide right away, but keep thinking about it,’” he said. “That was a good conversation, and then the story leaked. And with the nature of technology and social media these days, these things obviously spread quickly, and like wildfire.”
You've been accusing people who wanted to know more before condemning Dempster as having their heads in the sand (and worse). Now when Theo provides a detailed and unambiguous description that contradicts your assumption, you're going to deny that he means it?
-
Actually, what Theo seems to be saying is that he told Dempster well in advance that LA wasn't going to happen, that he should get comfortable with Atlanta, and that Dempster got pissy when word leaked out and held Theo's nuts in a vice right to the end. Considering how PC he was trying to be, his irritation comes across pretty clearly.
"Dead Horse" is an apt term at this point. As much as your seemingly boundless arrogance and condescension makes me want to keep beating that horse, it's clearly pointless. So the field is yours.
-
no offence meant deeg...sorry
-
no offence meant deeg...sorry
I took no offense at your post, Steve - I was just agreeing with you that this topic has become a dead horse.
-
People see what they expect to see.
-
I'm personally ready to move on to more worthwhile endeavors, such as watching Tim Tebow coverage on ESPN and debating the Cubs rebuilding plan with jes.
-
Barney is a great second baseman.
-
Actually, what Theo seems to be saying is that he told Dempster well in advance that LA wasn't going to happen, that he should get comfortable with Atlanta, and that Dempster got ****y when word leaked out and held Theo's nuts in a vice right to the end. Considering how PC he was trying to be, his irritation comes across pretty clearly.
"Dead Horse" is an apt term at this point. As much as your seemingly boundless arrogance and condescension makes me want to keep beating that horse, it's clearly pointless. So the field is yours.
We obviously disagree, and are not going to convince one another to change our positions.
But I'm not sure how disagreeing with you on this, and trying to point out what seems to me to be inconsistency between your position and what has been said by parties with knowledge of the situation have said constitutes "boundless arrogance and condescension."
My position all along has been that I/we don't know the facts of what happened in the private conversations between Theo/Jed and Dempster, and that I didn't want to condemn him given the information at hand. I don't believe that I've called anybody names or impugned anyone's motives, intelligence, sincerity or character. But in any event, if anything I have said came off as "arrogant and condescending" to anyone, I certainly apologize for that.
I hope we can agree to disagree without either of us getting testy, much less nasty about it.
-
I took no offense at your post, Steve - I was just agreeing with you that this topic has become a dead horse.
ok...how's about we crush Casey Coleman? ;D
-
ok...how's about we crush Casey Coleman? ;D
Why not? Everybody else does.
-
right....
-
ok...how's about we crush Casey Coleman? ;D
There's change we can believe in.
-
Theo's comments are interesting and useful but I think we should recognize the obvious: public figures spin and sometimes public comments are not exactly what is said privately. Still, no evidence that Dempster misled Theo. Some may want to infer without actual evidence--- and that's fine. We're not a jury here deciding somebody's fate or damages.
Looking back, I think Dempster would have been better off not giving some the impression that he would put the Cub's interests ahead of his own interests. By definition, 10-5 rights give the player the right to do what's best for the player---and naturally Dempster did just that. Seems a bit unrealistic to think a player would do otherwise but some read that into Dempster's pre-Braves remarks. I think that reading was wrong.
Only concern I had was whether Dempster misled the brass. Theo says No, publicly. My guess is that Theo is probably a bit annoyed by Dempster but recognizes that it goes with 10-5 rights. Theo is management and 10-5 is not for management.
-
Well said, Reb. I agree.
-
I also agree with Curt--it will be interesting to see what happens in the off-season and whether they bring Dempster back.
-
Dempster may not even be that interested in coming back after the whole Atlanta trade controversy, although time does have a way of healing wounds. I'd have to imagine his days as a Cub are over for good, though.
-
Why would the Cubs have any interest in signing Dempster?
-
He won't have 10/5 rights anymore?
-
Now when Theo provides a detailed and unambiguous description that contradicts your assumption, you're going to deny that he means it?
It's Deeg... and you're surprised?
-
I'm personally ready to move on to more worthwhile endeavors, such as watching Tim Tebow coverage on ESPN and debating the Cubs rebuilding plan with jes.
Not much point in debating the rebuilding plan. The Theocracy are rather actively following it.
The only major thing they are NOT doing is being completely open about this year and next year being written off, and Sveum's performance not at all being judged by the team's W/L record. On that issue (though I would like to see it), those pointing out that the team still does need to sell tickets are probably thinking much the same as Theo is.
-
Barney is a great second baseman.
LMMFAO
-
Barney is a great second baseman.
LMMFAO
You think that's funny?
Yet another Barney hater.
-
You think that's funny?
Yet another Barney hater.
Yes, there's no middle ground here at all - you must either think he's a great player or hate him.
-
Yes, there's no middle ground here at all - you must either think he's a great player or hate him.
Darwin Barney is baseball's Chick-fil-A!
-
Darwin Barney is not a great player. He IS an EXTREMELY good defensive player, and is becoming a more than adequate offensive player.
Personally, I would prefer Rogers Hornsby in his prime. But until Baez or someone like him fulfills his promise, we are certainly not suffering with Barney out there.
-
This may have been mentioned, but if so, I missed it. Do we know how much, if any of Dempster's salary we paid? For that matter, do we know if we paid any salary of the others we traded?
-
I think I heard Texas is paying all of Dempster's salary, while the Cubs are paying virtually all of Soto's salary.
I don't know if there has been any word on how much money went to Atlanta, but their payroll is tight...I'd be surprised if the Cubs weren't paying a good portion of Maholm's salary for this year.
-
Dave, I read on Fangraphs that the Rangers took on $5 million of payroll when they acquired Dempster, so it looks like we didn't pay any in that deal.
-
Too bad. But we had to pay for Concepcion somehow.
-
I agree with Play and ask why would we have any interest in Dempster this off season? We are in the middle of a rebuild and he is not young and is going to command at least a 3 year deal dor 15 million. They might extend Garza (though I bet he is dealt) but I see no chance Dempster is even considered.
-
As far as Barney is a great piece to the puzzle but not a true star. Winning teams are full of guys like Barney though.
-
I agree with Play and ask why would we have any interest in Dempster this off season? We are in the middle of a rebuild and he is not young and is going to command at least a 3 year deal dor 15 million. They might extend Garza (though I bet he is dealt) but I see no chance Dempster is even considered.
Not without a substantial home town discount and lack of no-trade clause. Under those conditions, the Cubs may think they could flip him, as they did with Maholm. I doubt that Dempster would go along with it.
-
One little thing I'll add to the Dempster saga: it's kind of absurd that they had to have him listen in to negotiations with the Dodgers in order to convince him they were being lowballed. Have a little more faith in your GM, Ryan.
-
Why not let him listen in and remove all doubt in his mind. Nothing lost by it, and in this case, it helped. It is certainly better than just letting him get his information from the kind of reporting and rumor mongering that are out there.
-
It shows a certain degree of inflexibility and a lack of good faith that it takes eavesdropping to get Ryan to drop his desires to go to LA. He could have refused anything but LA all the way, and I'm glad he accepted Texas.
-
This horse has been dead so long it stinks.
-
I think Dave needs to lock this topic up, so nobody's tempted to talk about it anymore. : )
-
This topic needs to go to the dumpster.
-
The Cubs were dealing with a guy that had every right to choose what was best for him. The Cubs management was quite inovative in working out a solution acceptable to both parties.
-
The Cubs were dealing with a guy that had every right to choose what was best for him. The Cubs management was quite inovative in working out a solution acceptable to both parties.
You're talking about Estes again, right?
-
Once he lets go of the ball, he has no control over what happens.
-
I agree with Play and ask why would we have any interest in Dempster this off season? We are in the middle of a rebuild and he is not young and is going to command at least a 3 year deal dor 15 million. They might extend Garza (though I bet he is dealt) but I see no chance Dempster is even considered.
If he were to come back on a favorable contract, I think it would make a lot sense to bring Dempster back. I think even in "ripping off the scab," Theo and Jed would like for the Cubs to win some games and have an effective and well respected veteran to lead the pitching staff.
I am pretty sure that people who work for the Cubs (players, coaches, manager, execs) as well as people who pay to see the games probably value winning games more than fans whose participation is primarily through the internet or TV. The latter can tune out the team if it stinks, for the most part, and simply focus their own attention much more on the future.
-
Dave if you really think there is a chance he is going to give us a home town discount after this fiasco then you might need to take a break. He is going to sign for the most money he can this is probably going to be his last contract, definately his last chance to truely cash in. His loyalty has been great that I'm sure that discount is coming.
Won't ever find out because I have no doubt that after the Brave mess Theo has zero interest in bringing him back anyway. Thank God we have Theo.
-
JR- actually i have had no problems with Barney, ever since he's hit the majors. I just was LMMFAO because it was suggested to bring up a different subject.
-
JR- actually i have had no problems with Barney, ever since he's hit the majors. I just was LMMFAO because it was suggested to bring up a different subject.
I think JR was kidding.
-
I think JR was kidding.
I was originally kidding, but now I see jacey merely says he "has no problems" with Barney instead of saying that he loves him, worships the ground he walks on, and that he's the best second baseman in baseball.
Still sounds like a Barney Hater.
-
It shows a certain degree of inflexibility and a lack of good faith that it takes eavesdropping to get Ryan to drop his desires to go to LA. He could have refused anything but LA all the way, and I'm glad he accepted Texas.
It would only indicate those things if it was Dempster insisting on listening in instead of Theo simply offering it.
-
I agree with Play and ask why would we have any interest in Dempster this off season? We are in the middle of a rebuild and he is not young and is going to command at least a 3 year deal dor 15 million. They might extend Garza (though I bet he is dealt) but I see no chance Dempster is even considered.
Depends entirely on what he offers to sign for, and what conditions he wants in the contract.
It might end up that he loves the pennant race experience he gets with Texas, but does not enjoy Texas, and by returning to the Cubs he knows he would have a great chance of ending up with another team in contention at the end with another trade deadline move.
It all depends.
-
Estes sucks.
-
Dave if you really think there is a chance he is going to give us a home town discount after this fiasco then you might need to take a break. He is going to sign for the most money he can this is probably going to be his last contract, definately his last chance to truely cash in. His loyalty has been great that I'm sure that discount is coming.
Won't ever find out because I have no doubt that after the Brave mess Theo has zero interest in bringing him back anyway. Thank God we have Theo.
I hope I didn't say that I thought that the Cubs would sign Dempster. I merely gave a scenario in which they MIGHT sign him, IF they believed in the scenario - trading him in midseason next year for prospects.
If they don't try to resign him, I believe it means that they believe that
1. they will not receive a significant home town discount. or
2. the think he will not have another career year next year, and will not be worth it.
I do NOT believe that they will refuse to re-sign him because they are mad at him. I have more faith in Epstein than to believe he would act against the best interests of the team out of spite.
Go Estes.
-
I think there was a chance for Dempster to return and may have been part of the discussions. Why bring him back? For the same reason they brought Wood back this year. Dave has already given some reasons. But I agree, a friendly contract and a return are unlikely given the snafu.
-
(http://mlblogsmuskat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/217.jpg)
-
How kewl is that? :)
-
Two-faced jerk.
-
I hope Dempster does want to play in Chicago so much that he comes back on a one or two year deal in the offseason. It would be fun watching the heads explode around here.
-
Pitching like he did yesterday and over his last three outings is the key for him to perhaps come back. If he's a league-leading-ERA type ace, as was true first half, he'll get rich offers from contending teams including several-year offers. He'll be a target.
Last year he was a 4.8 ERA guy, with bad luck; the FIP stuff suggested he should be better. I think this year the FIP stuff suggests he should be worse. So I wonder if he pitches as a 4.2 ERA type guy, or worse, the next two months, then maybe his market won't be so ace-ish. If he does particularly worse, and is getting very limited pursuit by premium teams for an almost-36-year-old Dempster, perhaps a Cubs deal might appeal, and the Cubs won't be influenced by two months of struggle.
As Ron has mentioned, management doesn't really want to field a terrible team and terrible pitchers. They'll have money to spend on some veteran pitcher(s), just as they had money for veterans like Maholm and DeJesus this season. Only they'll have a lot more available, since the cba bars them from using as much of their baseball budget on amateur procurement. And with Dempster, Zambrano, perhaps even Garza off the payroll, and Carlos Pena, that will provide some budget space even if overall budget is significantly down do to reduced revenue. There will be budget space for several guys in the Maholm-DeJesus-Dempster class.
-
Man, you guys sure are easy...
Hint - if the man offers you candy, don't get in the van.
-
I hope Dempster does want to play in Chicago so much that he comes back on a one or two year deal in the offseason. It would be fun watching the heads explode around here.
;D
-
I don't think we need to worry about that possibility too much...
-
I don't think we need to worry about that possibility too much...
Considering the heads which would explode, for some it might be much more a hope than a worry....
-
Sullivan reports the Dodgers are incensed that Dempster was listening in on their conversations with Theo, and they weren't told. I think they have a pretty good point, actually.
-
Let 'em be pissed. If they hadn't been lowballing their offers, they might have gotten their man. Serves them right.
-
What do they have to be upset about? They were negotiating about a player with 5/10 rights and it was near the deadline. Bringing Dempster directly into the discussions made sense, and I see no harm in doing so without telling them he was listening in.
-
it makes one think they were talking to Ryan behind Theo's back and telling him something different....otherwise, why would they be pissed?
-
Maybe they figure if he wanted to go there so bad, they can sign him cheap this winter as a FA. Negative comments about his value might work against that
-
A few more starts like his first one in Arlington and anyone will be able to sign him for cheap.
-
Maybe they figure if he wanted to go there so bad, they can sign him cheap this winter as a FA. Negative comments about his value might work against that
And, that's probably more likely...would love to have been a fly on the wall for that phone call, and the following conversation.
-
it makes one think they were talking to Ryan behind Theo's back and telling him something different....otherwise, why would they be ****ed?
Maybe because it would be a complete breach of ethics to have Dempster listening in on the call without telling the other club?
-
Maybe because it would be a complete breach of ethics to have Dempster listening in on the call without telling the other club?
Ethics? In baseball? The game with doctored baseballs, corked bats, stolen signs, steroids, umpires who think think they're the reason people go to games and "Larry" Bud as Commisssioner?
-
Doing more unethical things doesn't make any of the other unethical things less wrong.
-
Sun-Times:
‘‘If I was the Dodgers, I’d be upset if I thought players were listening in on our conversations, but that’s clearly not what happened,’’ Cubs GM Jed Hoyer said. ‘‘As I made clear [Tuesday] in my press conference, I kicked Ryan out of my office and put him in a separate office before we made any phone calls. Ryan was in the offices so that he could be there on a moment’s notice. He certainly wasn’t there to listen in on phone calls, and we would never let that happen.’’
-
That may well be (I hope so) but the implication was made here that the only reason the Dodgers would be upset if that were true is if they were planning something nefarious themselves, which I strongly refute.
-
Agree with Deeg. Write down that we reached agreement about Dempster. ;)
-
Maybe because it would be a complete breach of ethics to have Dempster listening in on the call without telling the other club?
What ethics?
Is it always in any human behavior unethical to allow another person to listen to a conversation without everyone else in the conversation knowing? Is that the case even when no one asked that the conversation be completely confidential and when the parties to that conversation routinely talk with reporters about what was said and both parties EXPECT the substance of the conversation to be relayed to the person who was allowed to listen in? Is that the case when the conversation more directly effects the life of the person allowed to listen in than it effects anyone else?
Hoyer says the Cubs did NOT allow Dempster to listen in, so it is hard to tell whether he was allowed or not, but I don't see any problem with it.
-
Maybe because it would be a complete breach of ethics to have Dempster listening in on the call without telling the other club?
Why is allowing Dempster to listen in on the call a complete breach of ethics? I've been trying to give this a little thought and am undecided on the matter, but leaning toward it not being because of the circumstances, myself. I keep coming back to if the Dodgers had been negotiating in good faith, it wouldn't have come to that to begin with. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. You'd choose to give Dempster away to the Dodgers for basically nothing or keep him, rather than letting him listen in and coming to the realization a Dodger trade was not a smart baseball move for the Cubs?
Either way, it sounds like the report was a misunderstanding...either that or Epstein/Hoyer are covering their backs.
-
In any negotiating, even Fantasy Baseball, it is normal to badmouth the player you're after a little to drive the price down, no matter how badly you really want him on your team. IF the Dodgers thought Dempster had heard their comments, stuff like "you know he choked against us in the playoffs a few years back," I can see why they would be hacked off. Nobody wants to go out of their way to offend others, and it certainly would have dampened their relationship had they actually gotten him.
If he had heard negatives, it might have screwed up getting his waiver of his 10-5 too.
In spite of all that, Hoyer says he wasn't in the room. I think he's telling the truth.
-
I assume Hoyer is telling the truth, that Dempster was not present to hear the discussions with the Dodgers. If not, the Cubs probably didn't break any rules, but their reputation would be damaged. Not just with the Dodgers, but with all teams that deal with the Cubs. The issue isn't just what the Dodgers say (or don't say) about Dempster. The Dodgers would probably not want a player (let alone one who may soon be in their clubhouse) to hear who is or is not offered; comments about their own players; comments about other players on the Cubs; etc. This has nothing to do with whether the Dodgers are low-balling, talking down Dempster, etc.
If the Cubs should reasonably expect the Dodgers' behavior would be affected by knowing Dempster is on the line, and they fail to tell the Dodgers, then the Cubs are open to accusations of unfair dealing. (Leaving aside whether there is any actual misrepresentation - it's also typical for conference calls to start with the participants identifying who is on the line, and there is a general business expectation that material participants in a conference call are identified).
-
good points, brs. I hadn't thought of the fact that he would have heard the players the Dodgers were willing to give up. That would be bad news.
-
When you're having a business phone conference, you tell everyone who's on the line. Pretty simple. I'd be surprised if Hoyer isn't telling the truth.
-
If the Cubs should reasonably expect the Dodgers' behavior would be affected by knowing Dempster is on the line, and they fail to tell the Dodgers, then the Cubs are open to accusations of unfair dealing.
"Unfair dealing"?
WTF is that? How would the Theocracy have been "unfair" in their dealing with the Dodgers by letting Dempster listen? How would the Cubs have gotten an "unfair" advantage or somehow compelled the Dodgers to offer something they would not have otherwise been willing to offer?
As to the concern about other names mentioned, ownership should have thought of that when it agreed to the 5/10 rights which truly changed the dynamic and put players like Dempster in the middle of the mix. And in the case of the Dodgers, they needed to consider that when they were discussing a trade for a 5/10 guy.... and the MLBPA should also have kept that in mind when they negotiated the the 5/10 rights into existence and created a situation in which teams have a considerable incentive to move a player before he ever has those 5/10 rights vest, which is one of the reasons we have so much roster turnover in the game, and so few players who spend their entire careers with one team any more.
-
I could understand if you called it unfair listening, but not unfair dealing. As Jes said, the Cubs gained no competitive advantage by having Dempster listen in besides maybe having him agree to a trade with a different team more easily. I guess you could say the Dodgers lost out on a potential boost to the team by missing out on Dempster, but I'll maintain that the Cubs wouldn't have given him away anyway. There's always the pick in next years draft they could have chased.
I could also understand if you said it entered some gray areas ethically, but i still wouldn't say it was a complete breach of ethics or crossed any line, unless the parties were identified, and he remained silent. Even if this were so and it was a breach of ethics, this was a very unique situation, and I think other gm's would recognize it as such, and not hold it against the Cubs front office. They have no history of being ethically challenged or having unfair dealings with other gm's.
In addition, every other GM wants to do whats best to improve his respective club, and if that includes dealing with Hoyer or Theo, then they will do so. Except for maybe the Dodgers, their plan to fleece the Cubs was thwarted and I could see holding a grudge. I will also admit my view may be somewhat biased against the Dodgers in this matter because they were trying to take advantage of my beloved Cubs, but oh well. Here's hoping the Dodgers miss out on the playoffs because they didn't trade for Dempster.
-
we wouldn't be having this conversation if it were not a 10-5 situation...
-
Trying another experiment . . .
-
I deleted a couple of my old posts in this topic.
-
Kind of curious of that affects anything or not.
-
I doubt it.
-
Of course, who would notice if they're your posts?
-
went to 226, the first new post.
-
I did not skip any posts.
-
OK so that ain't it . . . .
-
My log of where the bug shows up includes only high volume topics.
The Createaforum guy I've been trading E-Mails with was reluctant to become a member here so he could see the problem for himself. He wanted to use one of their test forums but he admitted that those topics have had only light usage.
I think we should just go ahead and create fresh topics for any with more than 3,000 posts.
-
My log of where the bug shows up includes only high volume topics.
The Createaforum guy I've been trading E-Mails with was reluctant to become a member here so he could see the problem for himself. He wanted to use one of their test forums but he admitted that those topics have had only light usage.
I think we should just go ahead and create fresh topics for any with more than 3,000 posts.
The Createaforum guide is an Admin who can't go anywhere he wants? Nobody checks on us now and then? Where's George when you need him?
-
Stay on topic
-
The Createaforum guide is an Admin who can't go anywhere he wants? Nobody checks on us now and then? Where's George when you need him?
Speaking of George, I still have a bookmark to the Prospero/Tribune forum. I went there a few months ago, and it was still there, with a few people still talking about the Cubs. It looked like the Tribune had completely abandoned it, though. Just tried again, and it's gone.