Cubs Rumor Thread 7/28: With 4 days left until the deadline, the Cubs have plenty of work to do

Cubs Rumor Thread 7/28: With 4 days left until the deadline, the Cubs have plenty of work to do

I was out pretty much the whole day yesterday.  I attended a blogger event early, followed by a Cubs game on the rooftop, and ending with a night out in the city with my wife.  It was a nice break and thanks to Tom and Felzzy for their great work.  Now it's time to catch up on what's going on...

10:28 PM: According to multiple sources, the White Sox have acquired Francisco Liriano for two players, IF Eduardo Escobar and LHP Pedro  Hernandez.  Scouts had soured a bit on Liriano and teams lost interest after his last start, in which he showed little and got shelled.  Of course, the Sox do have one of the best pitching coaches in the game in Don Cooper, so this is a good flyer here.  They didn't give up much.

5:55 PM: Danny Knobler writes that more and more teams are beginning to believe that Ryan Dempster will wind up back with the Braves after all.  Said Knobler, "Dempster never directly said that he wouldn't go to the Braves, but he also never approved the deal that the two teams reached last week. While that trade isn't still on the table, it still seems clear that the Braves are willing to offer more for Dempster than the Dodgers are."  From what I've been able to gather the deal isn't completely dead but that the two teams are in a holding pattern while the Cubs make one last effort to trade Dempster to his preferred destination of Los Angeles.  You have to wonder if the Cubs are close to reaching that point.  As we reported, it's pretty clear that the Dodgers have refused to budge and perhaps the Cubs have done all they could to extract fair from value from Los Angeles.  Maybe they will approach Dempster again about trading him to the Braves.

3:57 PM: Ken Rosenthal says that the Dodgers have shown interest in Alfonso Soriano but it's the Cubs who may actually hold off on a deal.  They think he may be more valuable in the offseason after he's put together a productive season (he's on pace for 31 HRs).  It also helps that he'll "only" have $36M and 2 years left on his contract and Rosenthal things teams will bite if they pare down that salary to $12M per year.  I think it will take more than that.  The Cubs don't need to trade Soriano before the deadline as he would easily clear waivers because of his salary.

1:45 PM: Jon Heyman writes that he doesn't believe the Rays will trade James Shields because they are asking for more than what the Angels got for Greinke.  In the article below, Stark writes that some teams think the Rays are just gauging value for the pitcher and are more likely to trade him in the offseason when more teams will be willing to bid.

1:36 PM: One source tells Jayson Stark that a reversal by the Braves and Cubs on a Ryan Dempster deal is possible. but that he "seriously doubts" that will happen.  Some also speculate that the three solid starts by Ben Sheets has lessened the Braves need to deal for a starter.

10:00 AM: The Angels and Brewers completed a deal that sent Zach Greinke to the Angels for 2B-SS prospect Jean Segura and RHPs John Hellweg and Ariel Pena.  The Brewers obtained excellent value here for two months of a pitcher they had little to no chance of re-signing, though all 3 prospects come with a good amount of risk.  Segura is an excellent hitter with an all fields approach.  As a SS, he'd have tremendous value but the thought here is that he ends up at 2B, where he can be above average offensively and defensively.  His biggest problem has been staying healthy.  Hellweg and Pena are two pitchers who can touch the upper 90s though both have control/command issues.  They both have #2 starter potential if they can improve their command.  They could also end up in the bullpen if they don't.

From the Cubs point of view, it's good news on a couple of fronts.  The first is that it bodes well for a good return on Matt Garza if teams check out his meds and think he's healthy.  The thought here is if the Cubs are willing to freely share those records, then Garza is probably fine and hopefully it won't affect the return too much.  The second point is that there is another pitcher off the market, one that went to a team that was not having serious talks with the Cubs anyway.  That leaves the Dodgers and the Braves along with Texas, Toronto, Baltimore and a few others still looking for pitching.

The big names on the market along with Garza and Dempster are Josh Johnson and James Shields, but so far the asking price has been prohibitive for the latter two, so that may give teams an opportunity to silde in and grab one of the Cubs pitchers.

As far as that asking price, we reported a few days ago that the Dodgers don't want to budge on their offer and haven't done so for weeks.  They're engaged in a game of chicken with the Cubs here on the assumption that Dempster won't go anywhere else, but as I speculated and was reiterated by Bruce Levine, it's possible that Dempster really is still willing to go to the Braves provided the Cubs give LA one last chance to up their offer.  If that's the case, LA will lose this game.

There are some rumors that the Dodgers may have greater interest in Matt Garza right now with the thought likely being that  if they're going to give up top prospects, then they'll want to get a guy who is younger, has an extra year of cost control, and can provide them with a comp pick.

After days of watching, reading, talking to sources, and trying to read between the lines, there isn't much new to report in terms of rumors.  It's likely down to who is going to blink first: The Cubs, Dempster, or the Dodgers.  If it's Dempster, he'll go to the Braves who have made the better offer.  If it's the Dodgers, he'll go there for a couple of top 10 pitching prospects such as Allen Webster, Chris Reed, and/or Garret Gould, or perhaps a raw, high upside, low level arm like LHP Jarret Martin as the secondary prospect.

As for the Cubs, they won't blink, according to David Kaplan.  They don't have much to gain by taking C level pitching prospects.  They've got plenty of those already.  I don't think they want to settle for the comp pick, but they're not going to take guys they don't feel will have a impact at the MLB level.  At least with the comp pick, they can take the best guy available who has that high ceiling they're looking for.

And we haven't even talked about secondary trade chips such as Bryan LaHair, Reed Johnson, Jeff Baker, Paul Maholm and Alfonso Soriano.  There are whispers that the Cubs are making one last hard push to move Soriano before the deadline.

Should be an interesting few days.

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    John, after this crap with Dempster I haven't been reading the blogs with any regularity, it's plum tuckered me out mentally...Hopefully we can get some deals done and if Demp still winds up in the Atl, i'll be thrilled but pissed at him anyway for putting everyone thru the ringer

  • I think some rumor fatigue set in even with here :) There's only so much speculation you can do before you need to see something actually happen. Expect things to start heating up soon.

  • fb_avatar

    I would hope that someone else ponies up for Demp because I'd like to see LA end up with zilch...They got Hanley for nothing basically and have been really shitty about giving fair value for Demp whom they've wanted for over a month...I really think if Garza's meds are checked hje'll be moved as well...I'm hoping that Demp, Garza, Soto, Reed, Baker, Camp and Marmol and Maholm got his week

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I agree, trade as many veterans as we can as long a we get
    a good/great prospect(s) in each deal. Try to package a
    player with each pitcher if possible

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    Well, I'm in the camp that isn't angry with Demp because I don't know the details. There may be a very personal issue at heart here. If all this speculation about him changing his mind willy-nilly is justified, then I'll probably be upset at how it went down, but I think we'll find out that there was more than meets the eye here.

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    If we trade Demp, Garza, and Maholm,
    1) What does our rotation look like for the foreseeable future?
    2) Will we lose 110 or 120 games this year and next?
    3) What FA starting pitcher is ever going to sign with a 120 game loser AND a team that dumps its signed FAs (Maholm) at the trading deadline?
    4) How many fans are going to continue paying $80 to watch a 120 game loser? How long will WGN keep paying to broadcast the CUBs when ratings drop to 0.0001?
    5) Without those fans and television rights, where do we get the money to keep our stars (Castro, Rizzo, Shark, ...) from bolting to the Yankees during their walk year?

    So, before we dump everyone for prospects, make sure we understand the ramifications of becoming a 120 game loser for the next 2-3 years. Ask the guys in Pittsburgh, KC, San Diego, and Baltimore how much they have enjoyed rebuilding from scratch the last 15-20 years.

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    there are, what, 64 games left this year? It is mathematically impossible for the Cubs to lose more than 102 gms this year....and even that would take going 0-64 the rest of the season.

    As for next year, I expecta better offense, and I have to ask if you assume Theo and Jed won't sign any free agents? Pretty sure we'll see more Maholm/DeJesus filler types. And even if next year's team lost 100 gms, so what? It would likely mean being able to draft a college arm who'd be in the rotation in 2015 or 2016....right in time for when the club is expected to compete.

    Free agents aren't stupid. They understand what the Cubs are doing. You think Maholm signed in Chicago because he thought he was going to a winner? Do you honestly think that? He came for the $$$. And better FAs will eventually come for the same thing, along with the chance to be a playoff team, when they're ready to compete.

    The Cubs aren't, nor will they be next yr, a 120 game loser. Some fans may stop, but most with season tickets will continue renewing.....for the same reason that WGN won't stop broadcasting Cubs games: you don't give up on a team for a couple seasons when you expect them to compete in a few seasons. Give up those tickets now, you won't ever be able to get them back again. WGN broadcasted many losing years, thanks to their owners...what is a couple more?

    Ricketts has plenty of money. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been approved to buy the team. The Cubs are always going to bring in money....and tv deals, well, they sign long-term contracts....and quite frankly, if WGN & CSN wanted to walk away, I think Ricketts would be the Cubs could make more $$ with their own network....or even a more up-to-date contract that pays the current rate for big market contracts.

    Ittsburgh, SD, KC are all small market clubs. Might want to look for a better example.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    If the Cubs lost their last 64 games this season they'd have 122 losses.

  • you're right. I was adding up the W column. Most they can lose is 121, but I think we can all agree they won't go 0-63 to end the year. I think the I-Cubs could manage 10-53 to end the year. The point remains, there is no reason to panic....or worry about 120 loses this year or next.

    And frankly, I want the first pick the next two years. Its the least they could do if we have endure a rebuild.

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    I think your post is a little on the pessimistic side. To help talk you off the ledge:
    1) It's unlikely the Cubs trade all 3 pitchers, but if they do then I'd imagine that for the rest of this year we'd see the likes of Coleman, Rusin, and/or Volstad. This, I'd admit, would be quite ugly and depressing. However, what the rotation looks like next year would depend on what they get in return for all those trades as well as Maholm-type free agent deals they would likely add to round out the rotation. Theo/Jed clearly want to go 8-9 pitchers deep even if those pitchers (esp. 4-8) are marginally talented.
    2) I don't see any way that the Cubs lose 110 to 120 games. That's pretty hard to do even for the worst teams. The last team to do that was the 2003 Tigers (43-119), a team that was in the AL and also had nowhere near the talent this current team has (Garza, Rizzo, Castro, Barney, etc.). I'd say 100 would be the worst unless we went with an all rookie rotation or something crazy.
    3) Well, seeing as how it's very, very unlikely that scenario pans out, I wouldn't worry. Plus, you wave enough money in front of anyone's nose and you're going to lure someone talented your way. Overpaying is another issue...
    4) The same fans who have been doing it for years. Or new fans who see the direction the team is headed in...
    5) The Cubs aren't going to suddenly become KC. It's just absurd to think they would.

    Also, to your point about KC, Pitts, etc.... they are small market teams who can't afford to buy good players and have horribly mismanaged their player development over the years (much like the Cubs in the past but at least the Cubs always had money to spend). In the absolute worst case scenario and Theo/Jed totally f**K everything up, you'll see a new Hendry come in and spend, spend, spend and all the Cubs fans looking for instant gratification will be happy and we'll go to be marginally good one on occasion and crappy other years. To me, that's the worst case scenario.

  • In reply to Pura Vida:

    As others have written, I'm still concerned about who steps into the rotation if we trade Dempster, Garza, and / or Maholm for prospects. Also, given that Shark is probably approaching his innings limit and the league has caught onto Travis Wood for the time being, we're looking at some big holes there.

    So, who's going to step up? Wells, Coleman, Volstead (sp?), Lopez?. Maybe Doug Davis is still available?

    Still think 120 losses is out of the question?

    Thanks and have a good one.

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    "I'd like to see LA end up with zilch...
    Me too. Let them have Zilch, and not Zych (Smokies' reliever).

  • Keeping Dempster for a comp draft pick is a bad idea. He may
    except and come back. Let's hope very hard that some team
    really wants Garza bad enough to deal for him. By late Tues.
    I hope this mess is all over and its just a bad memory.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    I'm not convinced he'll accept it. He may be approaching the point of no return here. And at any rate, he'll want some long term security at the end of his career and he won't get it from the Cubs.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    any idea on where the comp pick would fall and what the value would add to the spending cap? If it is in the top 40 and adds another 750k to the overall pool, it may not be so bad...

    that said, if Dempster is around all year he might be good for 3 or 4 extra wins and that could mean the difference between picking 2 and picking 5 (no one is catching the 'stros for worst at this point).

  • In reply to DoubleM:

    Comp pick would come right after the first round and before competitive balance lottery picks.

  • fb_avatar

    I still hope and pray that Dempster has pitched his last game as a Cub, after the nightmare he caused the team through all of this. And I am hoping that Soto too gets dealt. Haven't heard much about him lately, but he is definitely a flash in the pan and blocking other better prospects from getting a chance (Clevenger, Castillo). And as long as he is in the dugout, then Sveum will start him and tell the world that he is the starting catcher... killing us constantly at the plate.

  • In reply to Double D:

    Sooner or later the Cubs have to give those guys a chance but it wouldnt' surprise me if Soto stays and doesn't get dealt until the offseason.

  • so many rumors i cant wait until a move will happen... if a move will happen. just wake me up on tuesday night and tell me what happened

  • Dempster would never accept a qualifying offer. That offer would only be for 1 year of guaranteed salary. He's sure to get a multi-year deal for more total guaranteed money if he becomes a FA.

  • I agree with this.

  • fb_avatar

    I think it would in the Cubs best interest if Garza is made available AFTER the non-waiver trade deadline. If proven 100% healthy, I think Garza would get a better haul of prospects in return if he is claimed by a team like the Royals, Blue Jays, or the A's, a team likely get to claim him, who each have a deep farm system, and are looking for pitching depth ready for this season and in the near future.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    That's one approach but I think contending teams will block him from getting to the interested teams. If Garza isn't traded by the deadline, I predict he gets traded in the offseason.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I'm not so sure, John. As of today, Minnesota, KC and Seattle have the 3 worst records in the American League and might not put in a claim if Garza's on waivers. The next worst records belong to Boston, Cleveland, Toronto, Tampa and Baltimore. One of those teams might want to talk trade with the Cubs if Garza hasn't been claimed by a team with a higher waiver priority.

  • Maybe, but they'll also be happy if they just keep him away from other teams. Can get more for him in the offseason if he's not traded before the deadline.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree with that, John. I could see Garza getting to Boston in the current waiver priority order and the Red Sox putting in a claim to keep teams with better records from having an opportunity to trade for him.

  • Especially since Garza will be around next year. The move would block a team from improving themselves this year and for 2013.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Or KC, they have young talent but very little top-end pitching. Could use a Garza to build on instead of overpaying a FA in the off-season. Of course, the Cubs want young arms so working out a deal both sides like could be hard.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    I agree.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    He wont clear waivers, will need to go before the deadline or after the season.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Abe Froman:

    I wouldn't expect Garza to clear waivers. In fact, I would expect most teams, if not all teams, to try to place a claim on him. Looking at the reverse standings, teams like the Rockies, Twins, Royals, and Padres who could win the claim if placed, could also be legitimately interested in Garza and have the kind of prospects to get a trade done, just hoping that the Astros don't place a claim just to block any potential trade. In any case, it would be in the Cubs best interest to not trade him before August at the earliest.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    Waiver order goes by reverse standings in the opposing league first, then reverse standings in the player's current league.

  • fb_avatar

    You're right. I forgot about that.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    A waiver trade limits you to one team, the claiming team, and severely diminishes return because there isn't we've seen from Demp and the Dodgers. Pass.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    All I'm really trying to say is that it would be better to trade a 100% Garza anytime after the non-waiver deadline (whether its during the season or in the Winter), than try to trade <100% Garza in the next 3 days, to a team in contention for less in return. Any team who would win a claim for Garza after the deadline would have more to offer than almost any team in contention, ESPECIALLY the Dodgers. If he's not traded by the 31st and he goes through waivers, the worst thing that happens is that we pull Garza back, and we trade him in Winter. The one thing to think about is that we may get more in return if we trade him sooner than later if there is more time left on his contract.

  • In reply to Noah Alsberg:

    That could well be. Teams may also be afraid that if he goes to waivers, then they won't get a shot at him and be willing to offer something worthwhile now.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Good Point, John!

  • fb_avatar

    Bruce Levine said on the radio today that its quite possible that the Cubs extend Garza this offseason if he's not traded. He's mentioned Garza's agent is looking for 5 yrs in the 80 million + range. He really wants to stay in Chicago, and wouldn't mind extending him 5 yrs 70-75 million if possible.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    I'd be for that rather than taking a sub-par deal. He should still be good for the next few years and I can see him willing to take a hometown discount since he loves it here and hasn't been able to stay in anyone city. With a 4th kid coming, I'm sure he's tired of moving around.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    If he's healthy, 5 years for 70-80 million might be a good deal.

  • I think it is time to stop communicating with the Dodgers....focus elsewhere until they decide to get real on an offer. For what they're currently offering, they can have Maholm.

    I'm not sure I get the concept of waiting until after the deadline. Teams will be seeing Garza's medical records either way....waiting til after is just plain not smart. Doing so means you're stuck with only one option to trade with, severely driving down the price. This is just not the best option.

    It may be in the Cubs interest to trade Garza now, regardless of any supposed "injury discount." IMO, his value is still the same. The Anibal Sanchez & Zach Greinke trades have made the supposed "irrationally high" prices the Cubs were looking for Garza and Demp seem like discounts. Thus, in my mind, the Greink trade raised Garza's trade value, and at worst, his arm cramping just lowered his value right back where it was before the Greinke trade.

    By waiting until off-season, the Cubs risk flare-ups or a possible debilitating injury. The market has proved to be high, even with the new CBA...the time to sell is now. Garza, unlike Greinke and Sanchez, has an extra yr & nets that comp pick for trading partners. Even if he is limited the rest of the yr, not being a FA at the end of the season provides the acquiring team with insurance.

    Right now, my biggest concerns are 1) Will Dempster actually accept a trade to another team if LA doesn't blink, and 2) Will the Cubs be able to get anything close to adelgado if the Braves are still willing to deal for Demp?

  • This is off topic, but it would be very interesting to see what Soriano's Cub's career would have looked like if he had played every season in Chicago with the same dedication that he has played this year.
    That being said, I am not blaming Soriano completely for the poor approach in the past. The blame has to lie in the approach and philosophies of those in charge. If Lou, Quade and Hendry hadn't fostered such a laid back attitude by the veterans, then it wouldn't have become an issue. It speaks volumes to the change in approaches the Theo, Jed and Dale have brought with them. It is exciting to see the type of player Soriano can be when he is putting in an environment that is truly trying to build a winning culture.

  • In reply to supercapo:

    I think some of the high priced vets had it kind of easy in that culture.

  • fb_avatar

    Does anyone really think Darwin Barney is just getting a day off today? He had Thursday off, now Sveum decides he needs Saturday off too? I wonder if he's in trade talks that are getting close.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Hmmm. That is interesting. Could also be that some teams want to see if Baker can still handle 2nd.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    That would also make sense. Otherwise I'd speculate that Barney is a little banged up if he needs 2 out of 3 days off. Maybe he went out drinking with Patrick Kane last night. :)

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Ha! So much for trade speculation!

  • Things just may be falling the Cubs' way....

    Via MLBTR:

    "Some officials are telling Danny Knobler of (via Twitter) that the Marlins want more for Johnson than the Brewers got for Greinke."

    Also reporting that Texas won't give up Olt (or Profar), and that the Marlins and Rays want Olt in a deal for Johnson or Shields, respectively.

  • The Cubs should have no problem any pitcher that wants innings and a respectable deal. Because the Theocrats will be able to offer many of both. Now in a FA market like next year's, where Annibal Sanchez might get top dollar, who knows what FA pitcher is going to take a 1-2 possibly 3 year deal? But they'll be out there. Think Chris Capuano and Aaron Harang, who are both having "make good" years with the Dodgers.

  • In reply to felzz:

    This is exactly the kind of signing I think the Cubs will make. They wanted Capuano but didn't want to offer that much money. Maholm, though, turned out to be a nice deal. I'm expecting that they sign someone like that again.

  • fb_avatar

    Sure wish we Darwin Barney or someone else at 3b. Epic fail by Jeff Baker and Luis Valbuena in the 7th w runners on the corners w no outs and 1 out respectively.

    I understand the Baker move, but why not ph for Valbuena w a tough lefty Brian Fuentes brought in to face him ?

  • fb_avatar

    It's like sometimes Dale looks to challenge his players to prove baseball history wrong. How many people really thought Valbuena had a chance vs Brian Fuentes? I was shocked the at bat lasted longers then 4 pitches. Thank god Reed Johnson saved both of them w an amazing bunt! Go Cubs Go !

  • fb_avatar

    Anyone else think Starlin was safe on the grounder to SS? Cubs could still be batting w a 4-2 lead

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Yes he was safe. Horrible call.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Wasn't even close. Terrible call.

  • fb_avatar

    John and Tom, while Garza's injury makes a trade less likely, does it make a contract extension more likely? Bruce Levine intimated as much in his latest piece on ESPN Chicago, and I have to admit that I wondered the same thing after the initial shock of the news that he wouldn't pitch again before the deadline wore off.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I think it makes an extension slightly more likely but I don't know if that's what the Cubs want to do. I think it makes an offseason trade more likely.

  • Garza winning 13-15 games a year for the next 2 years does not do
    the Cubs any good in the long term.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to emartinezjr:

    No, but Garza will still be a good pitcher when this team is ready to win again.

  • John

    Earlier this year, you wrote an EXCELLENT column on the results of trades of established pitchers for prospects over the last ten years. Could you repost that column or provide a link?

    If my memory serves me right, your column's bottom line was that the returned prospects NEVER provided any value to their new MLB team. (Obviously, the jury is still out on some of the trades, e.g. Matt Garza for Archer et. al.)

    Given the extremely poor odds, is there any reason for me to believe that any prospects we get for Garza, Dempster, and / or Maholm will EVER provide any value to the Cubs?

    Thanks and have a good one...

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    Thanks! Here's the link...

  • By the way, Ryan Dempster is not the first person who has refused to "transfer" to Atlanta. Been there, done that!

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    Latest link says Dempster to Braves may not be dead after all.

  • It was a lot easier to dream about Soriano early in the season when we thought Jackson was about ready to make the next step. At this point, I'm inclined to let Sori play out his contract unless he can fetch something special in return. We are a couple of years from the big guys (Soler and Almorra) even being close, and I don't think we've got anybody else really knocking on the door. I'd rather have Soriano's power and production than just another DeJesus type guy to take his place.

  • In reply to TheSinisterUrge:

    Sorry...easier to dream about trading Soriano. I tend to think much faster than I can text on this phone.

  • In reply to TheSinisterUrge:

    I know what you mean. Soriano is one of the few guys you look forward to at the plate this year and if it's going to be a Fukudome trade where we get nothing, then I don't see the point. If he were blocking another player, then I could see it.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Soriano has improved greatly this year, a credit to him and the coaching staff. But even if Jackson (or another prospect) isn't ready for prime time and thereby blocked by Soriano, they still need to trade him if the other team absorbs a significant portion of his salary. His contract is up after the 2014 season and the Cubs don't figure to be competitive while he's still around. So they might as well give his playing time to a younger and less expensive player. The new FO doesn't believe in calling up prospects before they are ready, and set them up for failure. But I think it would be wiser to play a Joe Mather or Bryan LaHair in LF the next couple of years, provided they can save a bunch of money by dealing Soriano, which they can put to use when they are ready to win.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    Sure, but they have to give the Cubs something, whether its salary relief or prospects...and probably both. I'm just saying there's no reason to give him away right now.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    No guess is they send Soriano along with all but $10M of his remaining contract, and the trading partner sends the Cubs two or three prospects similar to what they got along with Wood in the Marshall trade. If nothing else, that saves them $10M.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    I'd take a deal like that.

  • At this point in time I would be kind of shocked if the Cubs manage to trade anyone. Either GMs are afraid of dealing with the Cubs' front office because of their reputations, or else our FO is overpricing the players. Or a combination thereof.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    I doubt it is the latter....the Rays want more for Shields than the Brewers got for Greinke.

    It seems like the asking price for Garza and Dempster is fairly reasonable compared to the Sanchez/Greinke deals.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    I've heard from my one of my sources who wondered if teams are not willing to deal with Theo for some reason. I still think they'll make a couple of deals.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Did they speculate on a reason they didn't want to negotiate?

  • In reply to SFToby:

    No, just something we talked about, wondering out loud kind of thing, Obviously it's not true of Miami, Cincy, Rockies, or the Braves, all of whom agreed to trades with the Cubs. But I sometimes wonder if guys like AA and John Daniels are a little wary of making deals with them. AA in particular is just tough to deal with because he doesn't want to take risks. He rarely, if ever, deals prospects with impact potential, so there's no way he'll ever get anything done with Theo if he's not going to roll the dice.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    thx John.

  • White Sox just got Francisco Liriano. Is he anything like he was?

  • In reply to Greg Shuey:

    Scouts were disappointed in his last performance. I think interest really waned and the Sox swooped in and bought low. Nothing to lose on their end. Nice flyer.

  • John,

    What am I missing about James Shields that makes him sooooo attractive? The guy is going to be 31 years old this year, has a 4.52 ERA, and just a couple seasons ago was 13-15 w/ 5.18 ERA. I'm not completely up-to-date with all the new, cool stats, but that just screams "crappy 5th man-in-the-rotation" to me.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    His stuff makes him potentially more, as does some of the those stats you mentioned, such as FIP and xFIP. He's 20th in baseball in xFIP, ahead of Matt Garza. What that means is that some teams feel Shields has been unlucky as far as giving up hits and HRs.

  • In reply to John Arguello:


    How would you rank the remaining (supposedly) available SP trade candidates (J Johnson, Shields, Garza, Dempster, etc) in respect to talent/value?

Leave a comment