Cubs Rumors: GM Meetings start today

Cubs Rumors: GM Meetings start today

It's back to baseball today.  The GM Meetings are officially underway and we expect to see an active Cubs team now and for the next several weeks...

  • 4:25 PM: Rumors are buzzing now on the availability of young, talented players such as OF Justin Upton, RHP Jeremy Hellickson, and RHP Trevor Bauer.  Bauer was selected ahead of Cubs top prospect Javier Baez in the 2011 draft and rocketed through the system, reaching the majors last before struggling.  According to ESPNs Jerry Crasnick, Bauer has "fallen out of favor with some people in the D'Backs organization."  A couple of quick thoughts.  How much are these going to cost?  Upton would probably start with Baez or Castro.  Hellickson will require multiple prospects.  Bauer will probably require at least one very good prospect or player.  But I'm curious, why is such a young pitcher of his talents already available after just one season in the organization?  You can bet that if GM Jed Hoyer inquires, this is something he's going to want to know.
  • 12:35 AM: Buster Olney thinks Francisco Liriano can be had for a one year, prove himself deal.  My guess would be he could be had for a Paul Maholm type contract if a team thinks it can fix his command issues.
  • 10:06 AM: Gordon Wittenmeyer writes that the Cubs are showing interest in RHP Brandon McCarthy and Shawn Marcum.  This isn't surprising.  Those two have arguably been the two most popular names out there in the media.
  • 9:27 AM:  Not rumor related, but Baseball Prospectus has their Cubs top 10 prospect list and it looks a lot like mine.  In fact, we have 8 of the same 10, and much of it is in the same order.  Jason Parks, who now does the list, has both Duane Underwood (8) and Dillon Maples (10) in his top 10, which is understandable given their raw ability.  I had them a bit lower because of how much further they have to go.  To me, Juan Paniagua has the same caliber stuff (and a better delivery than Maples), better command, and more consistency with his breaking ball than either.  Yes, he's a little older, but if all goes well, he has a chance to finish the year in AA.
  • 9:02 AM: I spoke briefly to a well-connected source who believes it's unrealistic to think that the Cubs can fill their 4 major needs of 2 SPs, an OF, and a 3B.  The likely casualty is 3B, as it seems to be lowest on the team's priority list and the market is very thin.  It also bodes very well for an Ian Stewart return.
  • 8:59 AM:  Some minor news I missed is that the Cubs have re-signed RHP Marcos Mateo and picked up utility infielder Edwin Maysonet, who you may remember hit a grand slam against the Cubs last season.
  • 8:53 AM: Jon Heyman writes that the Cleveland Indians are already getting calls on 4 of their players: SS Asdrubal Cabrera, RP Chris Perez, OF Shin-Soo Choo, and SP Justin Masterson.  We've talked about Masterson holding some appeal to the Cubs as a still young ground ball pitcher with good size and stuff.  Choo fits the profile of the kind of outfielder the Cubs would want except that he doesn't play CF, and his cost in terms of a prospect return may be a bit high.  It doesn't seem that the Indians are having a fire sale, so perhaps Masterson won't be as cheap as I've hoped.

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    3B does figure to be a problem, because we really want a short-term contract there with all the talent coming up through the system, but legit starters like Youkilis will only come with a longer commitment, and a bunch of $, attached.

    Was Stewart tendered? Not sure what the deadline is for non-tenders, but he would need to be offered $3 mil-ish in order to retain his rights. That seems a bit high, but maybe not considering other options. The only players we might get cheaper are also high-risk projects, like Casey McGahee.

    For SP or the OF, market is much kinder, and we figure to get more bang for our buck

  • In reply to Zonk:

    He hasn't been non-tendered and I imagine that's a decision they're looking to make one way or the other soon. In a weak 3B market, they'd risk losing him if they NT'd him unless they had a deal worked out ahead of time.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Compared to throwing 6 million at a basically unknown 19 year old lefty our of Cuba, 3 million or a bit more for a 3rd baseman at the major league level is a bargain.

  • fb_avatar

    We need to be very active...Another 100 loss season will make for a real tough summer. I'm not saying we need to give Soriano type deals to FA. But we have to put a competitive team on the field also

  • In reply to Barry Bij:

    I think they will try and be competitive, but they'll try to do it with pitching and defense. Looking to add 2 SPs and a good defensive CF'er. That potentially gives them a plus defender at every positioin.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Fangraphs had an interesting article on potential one year FA types. Nyjer Morgan was on the list; he plays a good CF, and is one season removed from hitting well. He would be an inexpensive stop gap.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    I'd be okay with that. May make most sense of guys on FA market. For trades I like Parra, Crisp.

  • Considering the puny 3B market, what have we got to lose by giving Stewart a long look-see this spring and summer? Unless he's still hurt and/or a total pariah (and we have nothing more than innuendo about his recovery regimen), why not hang onto him and see what we have?
    Plus, that way Vitters gets more time to work on things at AAA, Valbuena is still Plan B, and Villaneuva gets time to develop before the possible arrival of Baez at 3b.
    Alternatives: Brandon Inge, Jeff Keppinger (would like to have him around anyway). Please say no to Youkilis or McGahee.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Another option is Eric Chavez. He can probably be had on a short-term deal, and was OK for the Yankees.

    Not sure why he would go to a non-contender like the Cubs, other than promise of starting job

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I'd like to get Keppinger into the fold as a utility player and a possible platoon player at 3B. I get the priority of a top defensive CF'er and 2 SPs, though. It's becoming clear to me that the team intends to compete in the short term with pitching and defense.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    My understanding is that Keppinger doesn't play a great 3B though. Stewart wasn't good last season, but he showed us plus defense, at any rate.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    Which is why I don't think they'll pick up a 3B, or at least why it's low on the priority list. They'll stick with the good defensive duo of Stewart/Valbuena. If a good defender becomes available who can also play 3B late and at good value, maybe the Cubs pick one up. But even that seems unlikely to me. It seems that the Cubs need to pick up a utility guy who can play SS this year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    The more I think about Stewart, and look at the FA options, the more I think we should pay him the $3 mil and bring him back.

    The case for Stewart:
    1. It's only a $3 mil commitment; if he turns it around, we still have him under control for one more arb year. If not, we cut him loose
    2. He can field the position well
    3. He hit only .202, but in his defense, his BABIP was a low .242, indicating with average luck he can improve that
    4. He's battled a wrist problem the last couple years; hopefully that's the problem
    5. Prior to 2011, he was a highly-touted prospect who absolutely raked every minor league level he played in. He held his own at the ML level.

    If Stewart regains his form, we can buy ourselves another year at 3B while other players develop, or flip him for a prospect. If he tanks again, we're out $3mil, but we can afford that no problem.

    I would bring Stewart back and be done with it. We do need to sign a right-handed hitting infielder as a backup. (we can probably get Jeff Baker back pretty cheap!)

  • In reply to Zonk:

    If Stewart resigns, and does nothing in 2013....would you admit it was a bad investment?

    I say put Vitters, Lake or someone else at third. Stewart is NOT a team player......let the kids play.

    and please......No Jeff Baker either........we should call up Ron Cey and give him a tryout.

  • In reply to Zonk:

    All solid reasons for Stewart and I'm of the thought that if our medical staff thinks his wrist is healed he is our best option. I'm not sure what the f/o thinks so far as the innuendos of his work ethic/team commitment, etc... So that may be their rationalisation if he is medically healed, yet non tendered.

    But please, no more Jeff Baker and especially no more Joe Mather. Nothing against them personally, but Sveum just over used them. They are platoon/bench fodder and should not be playing as much as they did. Never understood his man-crush with either of them.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    'innuendos of his work ethic/team commitment, etc...'

    i recently read that his wife was pregnant & near due, so thats why he chose to do rehab in North Carolina. it may have been a Doug Padilla or Mooney article

  • In reply to CubFan Paul:

    If he's from carolina I would give him the benifit of the doubt. Also, some of this team spirit stuff is over done. If the guy was a long term team member and went off and sulked ok, but Stewart had less than half a season with the team, he barely knew people yet, may have been still getting used to being moved to chicago, and if he wants to rehab a potentially career ending wrist injury his own way I would think he'd have that ability. Some of the negativity is probably just from media guys who Stewart didn't know and didn't flatter the chicago reporters egos when he joined the team. I don't think this front office will make personal decisions based on a players success at stroking the chicago sports media's ego's. But if he can't play they'll cut him just like that.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    He's not actually from Carolina but his wife is. Ian met his wife who happens to be the daughter of Joe Mikulik the former manager of the Asheville Tourists while he played here in Asheville. They make their home here (at least for now). From all the reports I've gotten and I know a fair amount of people who know Ian very well he has been working extremely hard on his rehab and will be ready to go before spring training. I still think he can be a good if not great player but then I'm just a tad biased.

  • Here's a Masterson comparison that might be of interest. Per 200 innings he averages 199 hit allowed, 157 strikeouts and 80 walks with an ERA of 4.17. Matt Garza per 200 innings averages 190 hits allowed, 168 strikeouts and 68 walks with an ERA of 3.84. Masterson is a little over a year younger and made 5.67 million dollars less than Garza in 2012.

  • Interesting. Different pitcher but some of the same end results. I do think, though, that Garza has become a better pitcher in the last two years than he was with Tampa.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed. I'd like to see the Cubs show some interest in Masterson, though I believe they'd have to give something to get something.

  • John - don't talk about politics here....Clark & Addison and Ken Hubbs Lover do not believe Cubs and Politics should when the Cubs owners ask for taxpayers money to help out the Cubs, the City should say "No".......Ricketts are millionaires....let them use that money they would have used on free agents, and fix up their own ball park expansion.

    Remember, taxpayers money, politics and the Cubs stadium problems don't go together.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    the Ricketts are billionaires actually...

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I haven't really talked politics. We had some fun with the election but this is not a political blog by any means. We're all about baseball here.

    But then again...sometimes the two blend together, as with the stadium issue. The only thing I'll say on that for now is that the Cubs wouldn't be the first team to get taxpayer money for their stadium and they certainly wouldn't be the last. Whether we like it or not, it seems to be the way the baseball world works.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Thats how it works in the NFL: city builds/funds a new stadium then the NFL awards the city with a SuperBowl (big economic impact) w/in 3-5yrs

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    New stadiums were built in good times...we are in hard times...banks not giving out loans....layoffs happening.......just because the White Sox and other teams got public funds, means the Cubs should get it........Daley was a Sox fan and it was a different economic time......City Mayor will be screamed if he gave the Cubs city money for a stadium upgrades now.........I love the Cubs....but I am also economic sensible. Giving money to Billionaires to let Millionaires run around the field is not smart now.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    I agree wholeheartedly, but where this argument suddenly come from? This thread is about the GM meetings. No politics or even stadium issues were being discussed.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I think that Ricketts should move the team out to Arlington Hgts. He wouldn't have to look to band-aid the park every few years (and beg the neighbors to do it). The Cubs could have as many night games as they want, with beautiful new in-stadium facilities that would help attract top FAs. The new stadium could otherwise be a clone of present day Wrigley if they want. Jumbotrons will add to the team revenue. Adjacent to the park could be restaurants, shopping, etc.that would also bring in cash during the off season. Ricketts could help finance it by donating Wrigley Field to Chicago, thereby sticking all the maintenance costs to the city instead of the entire state and use the tax benefit toward the new stadium. (What's that real estate worth these days since the Cubs made that area so valuable?) Everything I've mentioned will help the Cubs win a lot more consistently, and isn't that worth more than peeing into a trough?

    Look, Emmanuel is on record that he's considering building a basketball stadium for a private school (DePaul) near downtown so they could play 16 or so game a year there, but not a dime to the most popular baseball team in town.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    with all due respect...
    are u out of your freakin mind!!
    theres no way the cubs are moving from clark and addison, NO WAY.

  • In reply to jshmoran:

    People said similar things about every old charming ball park at some time before it was shuttered. People said NO WAY to lights in Wrigley before it happened. Fans were against the Yankees moving from Yankee Stadium before they built a new one. Many Bear fans were against the team moving to Soldier Field but now can't picture the team playing anywhere else. At some point in time the team WILL leave Wrigley, it is just a matter of when it will happen. Its better to pick a time when it makes sense than be forced because of a major breakdown in the facility.

    Concrete was breaking off and falling on fans for a while. It will happen again unless there is constant maintenance, which is costing more and more every year without any outside assistance. Its like if you had a old beater of a car with the floor rusting out and the body held together with Bondo and duct tape and then being told you had to keep it in shape and couldn't buy a new car but were expected to win a Nascar event every season.

    Do yourself a favor and take a trip to a new ball park and see how the experience is made better with better facilities. I lived within walking distance to Wrigley for nearly 20 years and I loved it every time I went there. My local ball yard these days is AT&T, and the entire experience there is better by far than Wrigley, with the exception that the team playing there isn't the Cubs.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    ive been to many new ball parks
    and i agree there will be a time when the cubs will tear down wrigley or move out of it or whatever
    but not until a world series has been won.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    Emmanuel is playing hard ball but I just can't see Cubs moving out of Wrigley.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Staying at Wrigley will make winning there a lot harder, even after the waves start to arrive. How about if they build a new ballpark in Chicago? Could a real estate swap be made with the city? Wrigley for say, Portage Park? Its served by the el, its near a junction of 2 expressways, and should have space for a huge parking garage or two. I can't see the neighbors getting too upset because they've seen the values skyrocket in Wrigleyville. Building a new ball yard will also put a stop to all these small incremental changes that are like pulling teeth to get approval from the neighbors to accomplish.

    Wrigley is great despite its decay, but it is decaying. Ten, years, 25 years? They'll be moving sometime, and it will be easier to do now before they have to move a lot further from the city than Arlington Hgts just to find the room to do so.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    What you say makes a lot of sense, and paradoxically, it is also the best way to get wrigley rebuilt and for the cubs to stay there. If the Ricketts just put the option you present on the table, with the possibility of a covered stadium that could be used for superbowls and final fours, the city would pony up to help fix wrigley. Having a covered stadium in Chicago is a no brainer, even Milwaukee has one now. No one is going to want that to happen in Arlington.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    I don't think that the footprint that a modern stadium would require could be shoehorned into the area that Wrigley current occupies, especially if it were going to be multipurpose which I'd hate do to the Cubs or us fans. If Wrigley were rebuilt there, it would have to spill into the area that is currently the site of the proposed Triangle building and the McDonalds, which Ricketts owns. It would probably require underground parking because what little parking that exists not will be lost. This would make a new Wrigley Field extremely expensive and cost prohibitive without a lot of public money.

    When I first moved out to the SF bay area, I saw a beautiful ballpark built with 100% private funding. I think the same could be done in or around Chicago. However, the site requirement I think are a lot easier to fulfill outside the city. That's why I suggested a large park like Portage on the northside of town.

    Believe me, I'd rather see a new ballpark built in Arlington Hgts than say McHenry or Elgin.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    I'm not saying they shouldn't and it probably will happen eventually, just that I don't think that will happen, especially not while the team is losing.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Not surprising that you get your facts wrong, but you weren't talking Wrigley Field and the Cubs yesterday, you did a political rant. I actually agree with most of what you said, and would gladly talk about it more on a political website. This site is for following the Cubs. And when the topic is Wrigley Field and the work that needs to be done to it, and whether they are using taxpayer dollars, will be a topic discussed on Cubs sites. As John replied to you, he hasn't talked politics on this site, he just used the theme of election day.

  • For now, I'd like to see scouts descend on the winter leagues and look for any Gregor Blancos that could be found. I'd also like to see if Lake could win 3B in the spring. By the way, Lake was 4 for 5 and scored twice and Nelson Perez popped a 3 run hr yesterday.

  • At this point, Lake is well behind where Vitters was when Vitters was brought up--both offensively and defensively. Lake would be carved to pieces by MLB pitchers and be a disaster in the field. He would make Cub fans long for the return of Luis Valbuena in a starting role.

    Let's at least wait until Lake has given them a reason to call him up.

  • In reply to SVAZCUB:

    But Vitters didn't exactly force his way into the lineup either.

  • In reply to SVAZCUB:

    Agreed Lake is not ready and may never be a great MLB hitter, but he was actually a more patient hitter than Vitters last year and he certainly has the athleticism to be a better fielder long term. He may develop more power and will be a bigger asset on the bases. The one thing that Vitters has on him is the hit tool, but there's also a lot more pressure on it. Lake can get by being a .250 hitter, Vitters won't.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    My sense is that Lake's long term future as an MLB player hinges on how much power he develops, because I don't think he'll ever be a good enough fielder to stick at an infield position. He just has too far to go defensively, and hasn't shown enough progress there over his several years now as a pro.

    His ceiling, to me, is that he has a very small (maybe 5-10%) chance of developing into a Juan Samuel/Rafael Soriano type: a power/speed guy who has some serious holes in his game: defense that won't let him stay in the infield, and trouble controlling the strike zone.

    IMHO, Vitters is more likely to become a productive MLB player than Lake. I think it's reasonable to project Vitters as a guy who can hit 280/330/470 in his prime, maybe a bit better in his career year(s). With that kind of bat, if he can get his defense up to an ARam-type level (likely with some hard work), he can be a decent (not great) regular.

    As for Lake, it's not unprecedented for guys like him to blossom into 25-30 HR guys, and if that happens he could be a good MLB regular as a RFer or CFer. But it's a long shot, IMHO. And I don't see him ever becoming a MLB regular at an infield position, though.

  • In reply to SVAZCUB:

    For the record, I don't believe either will be regulars.

  • knowing that we have 4 holes (3b, cf, 2 sp's) im comfortable sacrificing 3b so that we can have more money to spend on the other positions.
    considering stewart said he'd take less money to stay in chicago i dont think it would be too weird to see a nontender and a resign for 1 year/1.5 mil on the same day. that leaves us with plenty of money for the two pitchers + cf.
    i think we'll sign one pitcher for something in the 7-10 mil $ range like marcum or mccarthy and another guy in the 5-7 mil $ range like baker or villanueva. which should leave us a lot of money to go after a decent cf wether it be through trade or elsewhere.

  • Entertaining/interesting BP article:

  • In reply to SVAZCUB:

    Good read. Thanks for posting!

  • I am excited about the possibleibility of trading for Masterson. Who do we have that Cleveland may be interested in? Why are they willing to move him? Is there a fit?

  • fb_avatar

    On the BP article: I'm surprised that Almora beat out Baez. I'm wondering if that's based on concerns with Baez's selectivity or just genuine praise for Almora's upside.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I'm going to guess selectivity and possibly a slight nod to position value if they feel Baez moves to 3B and Almora stays in CF as expected.

  • Cubs moving to Arlington Heights has been old talk for a long time now.....never going to happen.........the city will never let that happen......

    When Cubs and public funds being used to restore is a political discussion.....politicians using taxpayers money on a personal own private corporation......

    Jason Bay was bought out of his contract......should make a good DH for some team.......

    When you hear a player's name in trade talks with the Cubs...odds are the trade never is those "surprise" trades that gets fans going.

  • The Cubs have to have a completely open mind besides having a plan regarding short term planning. Any team with 100+ losses has got to be crazy if they think that any position shouldn't reasonably be up for grabs during the spring. If an out of position Darwin Barney could win the second base position during spring training, I'd think more of that out of the blue stuff is possible, especially after a season like we just endured. If we could live with a 3rd baseman who can only hit 7 - 10 hrs but play the position well, maybe we can slide Barney over there and look for Watkins or someone else to play 2nd. I'd think finding a 2nd baseman within our system or elsewhere to be easier than the corner guy, especially if Stewart, Vitters or Lake don't work out.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    I think it's more likely Barney get's traded as a second player in a deal with Marmol or maybe Garza. Maybe the "utility infielder" then get's the second base position? Cubs aren't done trading for prospects, that is still where the emphasis is, not on filling needs on current roster.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    I agree. I would rather buy a short term rental position player than trade any prospect we value.

  • fb_avatar

    For me, it's a no-brainer to try and pick up Masterson. The Indians seem like a team now that would prefer quantity and Cost-control over quality. In that case I see no reason why we can't deal from an area of depth for a possible top rotation guys.

    Indians get:
    Nick Struck
    Chris Rusin/Austin Kirk
    One of our many organizational outfielders

    Cubs get:

    I can easily see the Indians biting on this because we're talking 3 cost-controlled arms that can fit into your staff pretty soon. We have a plethora of 5th starters so I think trading a few of these guys for Masterson is worth it.

    I can also still see the Cubs taking a chance on Wade Davis and/or Joba Chamberlain and see if you can't make them starters again. Tremendous surplus in value if it works and I think that's worth the risk. I'm pretty sure they can be had for cheap.

    I can see the Indians biting on this

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I'd rather overspend and maybe get Haren or McCarthy for a couple of years if he's healthy then trade 4 of our prospects.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SFToby:

    Neither Haren nor McCarthy have the kind of ceiling Masterson has currently. And I wouldn't consider any of those players prospects. Ceiling max out at 4th realistically 5th starters and a reliever. Your telling me that's not worth a potential #2 or 3 who can be a horse?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I always liked the Joba Chamberlain idea on the cubs.. It just seemed like avoid fit to me.. Idk why.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Colman Conneely:

    A good*

  • fb_avatar

    Also, seem like Arizona is listening to offers on Trevor Bauer. He has fallen out of favor there. As much as i'd love to get him i'd imagine it'd take a king's ransom to make that happen. Unless..... re-discuss a Garza deal including Bauer? Unlikely but who knows...

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Just put that link up, which begs the question: Why are D'Backs giving up on a 21 year old who absolutely skyrocketed through that system?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Hearing his velocity has gone down since being drafted and he has be known to refuse working with coaches in changing his long toss routine.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Rumor has it that Bauer walks to beat of a different drummer. His own.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    There was a story out here in Arizona that he wasn't working well with the catchers. There was a rumor Miguel Montero tried to go over scouting reports and game plans with him and Bauer had no interest. He supposedly told Montero he didn't need to game plan and that he just wanted to throw to his strengths versus hitters weaknesses. Montero told him that might work in AA but not in the majors but Bauer refused to listen. The catchers ended up getting so fed up with him they didn't even want to help him any more. The team had no choice but to send him back to the minors.

    With that said he is a great talent and if the price is right it might be worth the risk. Maybe some failure at the MLB level will be good for him and he learns to change his ways. I certainly wouldn't want to overpay for him though.

  • fb_avatar

    Looks like A's will keep Crisp as well. Lot of chatter going on.

  • What I'm hearing is AZ is that they don't like is pregame BS, and is acting non coachable.

  • The question are (1) do we trade some maybe good prospects
    for a good young pitcher now or (2) sign a maybe good pitcher
    for a year or two until our pitchers are ready. Any prospect with
    great potential I would not trade unless we get a great pitching
    prospect in returen.

  • I'm not too keen on Upton. His contract is up after 2015 and we're not even expected to compete till that year. That combined with the haul we'd have to give up for him would feel a lot like bargaining the future.

    Speaking of which - and feel free to say no, HELL no, or just shout something in German if this is too labor intensive - do you think you could include years of control with some of these trade candidates as you list them in articles? The rebuild is so much about timing, I'm always curious to know.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    "Mortgaging" the future. No idea what bargaining the future is but it's probably on the Lifetime channel.

  • Jim Bowden mentioned DBacks were looking into SP, a 3B, and a LH Reliever. Wonder if we can throw Garza + Russell + 2 throw-in prospects to try and nab Bauer. Like his stuff but yeah there does seem to be character issues there. I mean I know last year he made a big deal out coming through the gates with warmup music and what not. Then there's also the whole thing about him not wanting to change his delivery.

  • fb_avatar

    Didn't we have enough "head cases" over the past 3 or 4 years?

    Trevor Bauer....... pass

  • Garza is already better than Bauer is likely to be. And then throw in Russel? Doesn't make sense.

  • fb_avatar

    If I'm Theo and Jed give the d'backs an average offer for him.. Low ball it.. A few decent\good prospects nothing overwhelming if they say no.. No loss if they say yes.. Then you have a good arm in your system..

  • I agree, you can never have enough good arms like Bauer. He's young enough to turn him around....why not??

  • Kevin Slowey chose to become a free agent. I'm hoping the Cubs sign him to a minor league deal with an invite to spring training. I think he's worth a look.

  • In reply to WillieG1:

    Could be a decent back of the rotation guy who eats innings when healthy.

  • Having seen Liriano many times before I would sign him to an incentive laden deal of two years + option. He's just plain nasty when he's on and really terrible when not,but at 29 yrs. of age he still has upside. His control is similar to Marmol's ,a scary thought but maybe Bosio can help fix him and he is left handed and isn't going to cost a bundle.

  • In reply to TheRiot2:

    He's definitely an interesting guy with the talent to be more than just a fill-in.

  • Just read that the Orioles might trade for a LFer rather than sign a FA.

Leave a comment