Cubs Trade Carlos Marmol, cash, and IFA pool $$ for Matt Guerrier

According to the Dodgers website, the Cubs have traded embattled closer Carlos Marmol to the Los Angles Dodgers for RHP Matt Guerrier, who was also DFA'd, cash, and IFA pool money slot #92, which amounts to about $204K.

This is more of a change of scenery trade as Guerrier, who turns 35 in a month, isn't likely to be a part of the Cubs long term future.  Guerrier had a 4.80 ERA (4.26 FIP) who has better control than Marmol 3.6 BBs/9 IP but less ability to miss bats (6.3 Ks/9IP).

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Wow $200K !

  • In reply to irish0625:

    Did the Cubs get $204 K in IFA money or did they give it to the Dodgers. If I'm reading heading and article is not clear about that. It looks to me like they gave the Dodgers an additional $200 K of money to play with in the international pool and the Dodgers are picking up all but $500 K of Marmol's remaining 5 million still owed.

  • Puts the Cubs at about $179k up on IFA money on the day.

  • In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    if the Torreyes deal is done, that puts them up nearly a cool million..

  • I don't love the fact they gave up the bonus money, but it seemed impossible to think a week ago that Marmol could be to give the FO a little credit for that.

  • In reply to DoubleM:

    I think we got 200K in the deal no?

  • In reply to irish0625:


  • fb_avatar

    ...and we just traded Ronald Torreyes for more pool money!

    John, you need to work faster and keep up!

  • Trading for pool money is the new market inefficiency.

  • fb_avatar

    The Cubs must be getting salary relief on this one; swapping Guerrier and Marmol cancels out about $2.3 mil, but Cubs are still down $2.5 or so......AND we gave up pool money....which means that we must have had some salary relief from that $2.5 mil difference. Because otherwise, we could have just waited on Guerrier and signed him for the ML minimum.

    This would also place a $ value on IFA pool money

  • Any word on how much of his salary the dodgers are taking on?

  • Can someone explain why it made sense to give up pool money to dump Marmol?

  • fb_avatar

    Could someone spell out a little more eloquently which direction money went in this deal? I think the amount of money left on Guerrier and Marmol's respective contracts might help put that mystery 200k in perspective.

  • fb_avatar

    This one really feels like the Cubs brass out-thinking themselves. Not a fan.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Agreed. Need the money details.

  • What is everyone complaining about? We were able to get rid of Marmol when a week ago we literally thought we'd be just letting him go, and still having to pay him his $5 million... at least this way we got an MLB proven reliever that at least seems to be an upgrade over Marmol. The $200,000 isn't that big of a deal either with the money that we've had come back between Feldman and Torreyes.

    You can't have it both ways people... I tip my cap to the FO just being able to get anything what so ever for Marmol.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jamato:

    What people are complaining about is we feel we wound up in a worse position than if we'd just released him.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Fair enough I guess, but I just don't see how we can conceivably be worse off then if we had just released him. We got a bit of a more effective reliever, and the $ really isn't anything to worry about for the rest of this season. Like I said before, we're still way out ahead on the International Bonus Pool $ after the Feldman and Torreyes trades, and should be plenty for us to get Jimenez and that Moreno (I think that's his name) pitcher.

    Sorry, I wasn't trying to dog any of you. I am just playing devil's advocate here, and am just glad that we were able to get anything for Marmol at all haha.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jamato:

    $200k in IFA money is $200k in IFA money. That's enough to sign a marginal prospect. (Starlin Castro, famously, signed for $45k.) Since it's a pure numbers game in middling international prospects, the loss is not insignificant.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Oh, I definitely understand that it's not a small chunk of change Mike, and that you can find marginal prospects at that price, but for every Starlin Castro that signs for $45k there are 100s of international prospects signs that don't. In the grand scheme of things, I think that trading somebody we've basically been begging to get rid of for two years now for a bit more effective replacement and 1-2 less marginal prospects in the process is ok by me. And still getting roughly $1 M to supplement that loss for a SP we were already going to trade, and a decent prospect that was already blocked by better prospects anyways makes it even more worth it to me.

  • In reply to Jamato:

    It is only about the IFA money. The Cubs could've sent LA an extra million instead of sending money from a limited source (IFA slots). Factoring in anything else than that misses the point of the frustration.

    If you take the IFA $ away, nobody complains about the trade. That, and some of it probably has to do with confusion over who initially was sending/receiving the money. Thinking the Cubs were receiving money only to find out they were giving IFA money doesn't help the perception of the trade.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I know that's how I feel. IFA slot rights don't grow on trees,

  • Definitely need to understand how much freight the Dodgers are paying on Marmol's rest of the year salary to understand who win and who lost this one.

    I feel like there should have been a bag of magic beans also included somewhere in this trade it is so convoluted.....

  • fb_avatar

    According to Yahoo and LA Times, the Cubs are also sending about $2 mil in cash with Marmol in this trade.

    Without making a trade at all, the Cubs would owe Marmol $4.8 mil this year, and the Dodgers would owe Guerrier $1.8 mil.

    By making the trade, the Cubs reduce that $4.8 mil liability by $1 mil ($1.8 mil to Guerrier, + $2 mil cash). In order to save that $1 mil cash, the Cubs also shipped an IFA slot of $207,000 to LAD.

    Thus, it would seem that $1 IFA is worth about $5 real dollars, at least for the Cubs and Dodgers

    Following my logic?

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Thanks for posting. The trade makes more sense to me now. Seems fairly even TBH. I guess Marmol could catch fire like he did in the 2nd half last year, but I honestly just don't think that was going to happen in Chicago and I think Carlos was damaging the morale of the entire team.

    Basically we swap mediocre relievers, and save a $1 mln. I know the IFA is important, but it looks like we got enough cash in the other deals to accomplish our goals.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    I'd rather the Cubs pay 5 real $ as opposed to the limited IFA $.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    I get the math, but just don't understand why a Cubs fan should be excited that they got $1M "real dollars" back? What are the Cubs going to do with the real dollars this year - the team is already the most profitable in baseball, they didn't really need real dollars. I'd rather have the IFA pool dollars since that's the market that is capped.

  • Wish I could remember where I read this yesterday but when the rumors first started about the deal to the Dodgers Marmol was referred to as clubhouse cancer, which kind of shocked me. I know that it can't be easy when you are blowing games like that so was that causing rifts in the clubhouse? Or is there more?

  • In reply to jorel1114:

    I'd imagine it has more to do with Marmol blowing so many damn games for the Cubs over the last 2 years or so. That has to be deflating.

  • I can see the rationale to just cut Marmol, but in Cubs defense they got something for him and that was the whole point, I think. Money-wise, maybe it is better to have let him go, but at the end of the day you would rather get someone back for him and maybe in Guerrier's case, a serviceable reliever who has some life left .

  • Hate this trade. It seems like we just took a step back after taking two steps forward for IFA Money. WTF?

  • This is definitely a head scratcher. Even if we don't need the extra IFA money, why would we give it to the Dodgers of all teams. I wonder if they will explain the rationale publicly?

    Probably will have to wait 30 years, until Epstein's memoirs come out before we get the real scoop.

Leave a comment