Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Recent Blogs

Photo

The math for the Haren to the Cubs deal (and myths about "affordability")

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,204 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

Haren has a $15.5M option for 2013.

Allegedly the Angels are pitching in $3.5 M, which makes the cost to the Cubs $12M.
Marmol's guaranteed salary for 2013 is $9.8M, which makes the net cost for Haren to the Cubs $2.2 M.

Still don't get why Mr Ryan could not work a deal like this, by sending someone like Burton to the Angels (who is about as good at Marmol these days) and having the Angels eat more $.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#2 Rick Blaine

Rick Blaine

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

The following was posted on MLBTraderumors---- I hope it is okay to post here. Matt Capps is considered an option???
" So who closes for the Cubs now? James Russell?

free agent i say they will go after Matt capps"

#3 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,204 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:29 PM

and the deal is apparently dead... Cubs pulled out at the last moment.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#4 one_eyed_jack

one_eyed_jack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 590 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

Apparently Angels are talking to other teams now. Knobler says deal to Red Sox not happening, so maybe Twins still in this one.

#5 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:14 PM

kc fien and burnout for haren and 6 million?

#6 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 178 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

If that deal - that the Angels send Haren + $3.5M to the Cubs for Marmol - was really the deal, there are roughly 28 other GMs that would have jumped into bed with the Angels, too.

Supposedly, the whole reason the Angels were moving Haren was because they were on the hook for $3.5M. They're trying to save some money to pay to Greinke. By moving Haren, they either were going to get someone else to pay it, or pay it themselves and still get another player out of the deal.

So I don't get this deal from the Angels standpoint. Why would they want to pay $9.8M for Marmol next year AND pay $3.5M to make Haren go away? It doesn't make any sense unless they have a totally irrational mancrush on Marmol, in which case nobody can match it . And, by the way, if that was the deal, there is NO WAY the Cubs back out of that. Like Epstein wouldn't give up Marmol and $2.7M for Haren? C'mon.

I don't know if we'll ever hear the full story, but there is no way that deal was the deal.

#7 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,622 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

I totally agree, with that take. Not a chance the Cubs were backing out of that deal unless they were forced to because Marmol refused the trade. The Cubs sounded willing to give Marmol away at times last year.

I could see the deal from the Angels perspective though. Aside from signing Greinke, one of their main focuses this offseason will be securing back end of the bullpen help, and they do love their hard throwers. You're right though, can't imagine the Angels would deal Haren to clear up less than $3 million, unless there was also talk of a Soriano/Wells swap too. Both teams have bad contract outfielders, but Wells contract is $3 million per year worse than Soriano's. You'd think they wouldn't be able to keep that aspect of a deal secret, but that would have helped the Angels free up an extra $3 million, and it also would have given the Cubs a reason to say no.

#8 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,000 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:28 PM

I have no idea what the Angels were doing even considering this ridiculous trade. I mean . . . it is RIDICULOUS. If it is true that Marmol was on board and the Cubs pulled out anyway . . .wow. Now both GMs are pretty bad "deciders."

Maybe there were also some minor league players involved--as in some Cubs prospect for a scrub in return? Then it *might* make sense from the Cubs perspective, but dumping Marmol is a golden idea. He is not very good in that role.

#9 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,955 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

I have no idea what the Angels were doing even considering this ridiculous trade. I mean . . . it is RIDICULOUS. If it is true that Marmol was on board and the Cubs pulled out anyway . . .wow. Now both GMs are pretty bad "deciders."

Maybe there were also some minor league players involved--as in some Cubs prospect for a scrub in return? Then it *might* make sense from the Cubs perspective, but dumping Marmol is a golden idea. He is not very good in that role.

Right. Haren actually has value, but the Angels so poorly played their hand that they were willing to take whoknows Marmol in return. Pfft.

#10 mbents

mbents

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:52 AM

Looks like this is why the Cubs pulled out of the trade:

http://hardballtalk....-harens-health/

Apparently Haren's health is a big question mark. Sounds like a stay-away.