Chicago Cubs Trade Carlos Marmol to LA Dodgers for Matt Guerrier
The Los Angeles Dodgers have reportedly acquired Chicago Cubs reliever Carlos Marmol and the international signing bonus slot No. 4 for reliever Matt Guerrier.
MLB Roster Moves on Twitter reported the news:
It was the second deal of the day for the Cubs on the day as the MLB's trade season rapidly approaches. According to SportsCenter, the Cubs dealt starting pitcher Scott Feldman to the Baltimore Orioles in a separate move.
Cubs selling hard today. Ex-closer Carlos Marmol goes to Dodgers for RP Matt Guerrier, SP Scott Feldman dealt to Orioles in separate deal.— SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) July 2, 2013
Dealing Marmol is not a shocking move for the Cubs. They designated the 30-year-old reliever for assignment on Tuesday, which meant that the club had to either recall him to the roster within 10 days, place him on waivers or trade him.
The former All-Star has struggled for the Cubs all season. In 31 appearances for the Cubs he is 2-4 with an ERA of 5.86 and is just 2-of-5 in save opportunities. His WHIP of 1.70 is a career high.
Marmol has $4.9 million remaining on his contract, per Spotrac.
According to Keith Law of ESPN, Marmol will make a few appearances in the minor leagues before joining the Dodgers:
Dodgers will send Marmol to the minors for a few outings— keithlaw (@keithlaw) July 2, 2013
Guerrier hasn't fared much better for the Dodgers' own rocky bullpen this season. In 34 appearances he has a record of 2-3 with an ERA of 4.80 and WHIP of 1.47. He is 0-of-1 in save situations.
The Dodgers will hope that Marmol can resolve the control issues that have plagued him on the mound. He has walked 21 batters in his 27.2 innings pitched this season while striking out 32.
Despite just a 2.5-game difference between the teams' records, Los Angeles is currently just 3.5 games out of first place in the National League West race, while the floundering Cubs are 15.5 games behind the first-place Pittsburgh Pirates in the National League Central division.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?