One year later, what are your thoughts on Matt Garza?

One year later, what are your thoughts on Matt Garza?

Around this time last year, many were certain the Cubs were going to trade Matt Garza.  I remained skeptical, not necessarily because I was against the idea, but because as a 27 year old pitcher coming off a 5 WAR year and two full years of cost control, the Cubs had every reason to shoot for the moon. Given Garza's spotty history before 2011, teams had every reason to hedge their bets and demand the Cubs' lower their price. To me, a compromise seemed difficult.

The Cubs also held the upper hand, not just when you consider Garza's age and performance, but also when you factor in that the Cubs being a big market team who would have no trouble keeping Garza if they so chose.  There really wasn't any reason for the team to settle.  So they didn't.

Given the recent history of trading top starters, many of them better and with a more consistent track record than Garza, the odds of getting an impact player in return are a lot lower than you might assume.  I listed the more recent trades in an article back in February.

Since then, Garza's value has gone down.  There is one less year of cost control.  The changes in the CBA mean that if he isn't traded before the season, then the team acquiring him has no option to acquire compensation in the form of a draft pick.  Then, of course, there was the season ending injury shortly before the trade deadline, the one that quashed any idea of dealing him before the offseason.

Recently, Garza has been cleared to resume "a normal offseason throwing program".   He is expected to be healthy and ready for opening day, but the assumption here is that teams will be skeptical until they seem him in a live game.  Will he have the same velocity and command or will they see a diminished Matt Garza?

On the plus side, Garza has quelled many questions about his makeup, which was a question before he landed with the Cubs.  He has not only kept his emotions in check for over two years now, but he has done everything the team has asked, including revamping his approach.  We also saw the Cubs pitcher stay with the team before and after it was decided he would miss the rest of the season.  And not only did he stay with the team, but he became one of it's most visible supporters and offered himself as a resource to any and all of the young starters the Cubs trotted out in the second half.   It all speaks volumes on Garza's growth from a mental makeup standpoint.  So while there is increased risk physically, there is now much less risk, if any, with Garza about his character.

A team looking to acquire Garza could take one of three approaches...

  1. The first is a "wait and see" type of approach until the spring.  Teams will have a better idea of what their needs are going into the season and they'll get a chance to see Garza pitch in game situations. Additionally, they can still get draft pick compensation as insurance.
  2. The second is a longer "wait and see" approach where a team waits until the trade deadline.  At that point they'll have a better feel for whether Garza's elbow will hold up over the course of a season.  The risk becomes greater, however, that the Cubs may decide to keep Garza and sign him to a multi-year extension.  A team that acquires Garza at this later stage also loses the advantage of being able to obtain a compensation pick should they fail to re-sign him.  Yet another, but significantly smaller risk is that the Cubs unexpectedly become a competitive team and thus will want to keep Garza at least until the end of the season.
  3. The third approach would be to strike now and assume greater risk.  I wouldn't expect the Cubs to sell low unless they have genuine fears about Garza's ability to come back strong next season, but a team could theoretically get him for a lower price than later in the spring if Garza should prove healthy.  At that point, the competition for Garza's services might increase.  For the Cubs, if the offer gives them good value they should consider taking it as it minimizes their risk.  At the same time, that extra security will come at the risk that Garza will be fully healthy inthe spring, thereby costing them a potentially superior package of prospects as a return.

We don't know about what the Cubs preference is or what their optimism is regarding Matt Garza.  My guess is that they're willing to listen now if the right deal comes along, but won't trade him unless a team assumes a fair amount of the risk on both sides and puts together a good package.  Otherwise I expect them to at least wait and see how Garza comes along this spring, if not longer.

What's your opinion on the next course of action for the Cubs?

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Garza has become an overrated pitcher. He's a good #3. Won't be worth the money he will get.
    Trade him. Not sure when because I don't know what kind of offers he would be getting right now....but most definitely do NOT sign him to an extension.

  • In reply to Norm:

    What do you base his being a good #3 on? The only people I've heard say he can't be a two were teams looking to trade for him and depress his value. From a scouting standpoint, he has all the attributes of a #2 starter. And I think using statistics going back to his time before his time with the Cubs ignores the improvement in his approach on the mound and the affect it's had on his results the last two years.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Well, if you remove the time before the Cubs, we only have a year and a half of statistics to go on...
    But his results in 2012 weren't that great (3.91 ERA, 4.17 FIP, 3.59 xFIP), probably due to a bit unlucky home run rate. And 2011's results were just the opposite (3.32 ERA, 2.95 FIP, 3.19 xFIP) a bit lucky on the home run rate.
    Including his time before the Cubs, he's got a career 3.84 ERA, 4.00 FIP, 4.05 xFIP.

    While he might have the stuff for a #2, and could BE a number 2 (like his first year in Chicago), he's really only had 1 season with those results. And now with the injury and hitting the last year or two of his prime?

  • In reply to Norm:

    Removing his time with the Cubs removes a major piece of his value. His control, approach, and mental makeup have all vastly improved since coming to Chicago, plus he's hitting his prime.

    Assuming he's healthy, he's a far better pitcher now than he was this time in 2010, and that's what teams are going to be trying to acquire.

  • fb_avatar

    I like Garza. Him and Samarija are bulldogs on the mound and there is something to that IMO. A good example for young pitchers and he also seems like a guy who gets along w the older and younger players.

    I would like to see him 2-3 times in the spring and then try to resign him at hopefully a little less then CJ Wilson got, unless of course they trust there doctors and can get a 5 yr 60-65 million deal done now.

  • In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Agreed. Good to have a guy with that kind of competitiveness on the mound, as long as he keeps those emotions in check, which Garza has done very well since joining the Cubs.

  • Wait until the last week of ST then decide if (1) he fits into our long
    term plans or (2) how much trade value does he have now as
    oppose to the end of July

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    Im getting the feeling that's what they might be thinking.

  • The Cubs didn't need starting pitching when they traded for Garza. They overpaid for that mistake then and they're still paying for it. Let him prove that he's healthy and then shop him at the deadline. If he's not traded, make him the qualifying offer at the end of the season.

  • That is one thing to keep in mind. Whatever a team gives the Cubs has to be higher than the value of a 1st round comp pick, otherwise there's zero incentive to trade.

  • fb_avatar

    Torn between waiting till the deadline and trading him vs signing him long term. Either way is a gamble in my opinion. If they sign him now that says he is in our long term future but then we just don't know how he will pitch after his injury.

    If we wait and sell at the trading deadline, who steps up to fill his shoes for the anticipated 2014 turn around and 2015 possible play off appearance?

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    It's a tough, risky situation no matter how you look at it. I'm not even sure myself what the best course of action is.

  • fb_avatar

    Based solely on what I can see, I'd be inclined to extend Garza if he comes back healthy. A rotation with Samardzija-Garza as 1-2 isn't great, but it's solid and -- if you add high end pitching talent through FA signings -- they can become the best 2-3 or 3-4 in the game. But the Cubs have never seemed to seriously consider that, which makes me wonder if there's more than I can see.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    That's the part I wonder about -- Cubs always say they want a pitcher "like" Matt Garza, but never have made a strong effort to re-sign him. It could be they have some concerns but it could just be that it's the timing (regarding his age/cost-control) that they don't feel coincides with the rebuild.

  • John, nice topic for a couple of days before Thanksgiving. I really have liked Garza's approach to the team and his coaches. My preference would be that as soon as the FO feels comfortable that he is healthy, they should try to sign him long term. As long as he is healthy, he is a solid #2 and his support for the young pitchers should prove very valuable as the Cubs develop into contenders.

  • In reply to les561:

    Thanks. I like how far Garza has come along on and off the mound. I think he's a #2 as well but I'm sure opinions differ on that. Most of what I hear is positive, though....well, at least before the injury.

  • I just feel there is no guarantee the Cubs would get a fair trade in return for Garza. Prospects are what they are, ie prospects. Teams are lucky if one prospect contributes to the major league team. Garza likes it here, is needed, and in my opinion worth more to the Cubs long term than what a trade would provide.

    With pitching being a premium sign him to a three year contract with a fourth year option. I just dont see him, if healthy, being replaced easily. Personally I like his grit as well.

  • In reply to Rbirby:

    I think if they can get a team friendly deal there's a lot worse you can do then have a pitcher with Garza's ability and relative youth in your rotation. I don't know if you clicked on the link for the old article, but few, if any, teams made out well by trading their starters.

  • If the Cubs are comfortable with the med report they should sign him long term now while His value is depressed a bit because of the injury. #2s dont grow on trees . With Shark taking a huge step forward last year I lock both of them up long term and sit like a snake in the weeds and wait for a true 1 to become available and pounce.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    If's fun to think about for those who want to keep Garza. If they got a true #1 and Shark, Garza healthy and keep same level of ability/production, that would be a great 1-2-3.

  • Hey John, haven't commented in some time, but I have been reading the articles. Keep up the great work! I would extend Garza now at a reduced price. To get big value, you're going to have to assume some risk.

  • In reply to dgedz27:

    Good to hear from you dgedz27. It has been awhile. That risk can pay off big time if he proves to be healthy and he signs at a reduced price.

  • I wish the Cubs would have dealt Garza for a strong prospect package last year when his value was much higher. It seems like the Cubs have intended to trade him all along, but that they tried to wait until the summer trade deadline to squeeze maximum value out of him.
    Not that the FO mismanaged the situation by going for the max, since that could have worked if not for bad luck. Still, I wish the Cubs would have hedged their bet and traded him earlier.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    I think you have to go for the max, don't you? Given the history of unsuccessful trades when dealing a top starter, I'd want to increase the odds as much as possible that at least one of the guys you will have an impact.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    It was a gamble that didn't pay off in this case. I assume they could have received a stronger package for him early last year coming off a career (healthy) year than they can get for him this year. Sometimes injuries get in the way.

    Maybe the silver lining to Garza's depressed current value will be that it will allow the Cubs to sign him long term at a #3-starter salary, and Garza will recover to his #2 form.

  • In reply to baseballet:

    If the Cubs can get him at a #3 starter price with some protection from injury then that is indeed a silver lining.

    As for a trade or non-trade, it's really hard to know without having the details, I guess. I don't know how true the rumor was, but it was thought that the Tigers were willing to include Jacob Turner but not Nick Castellanos in a potential deal Some now think Turner, after his own injury, looks more like a 4th or 5th starter. If that's true, then I'd be glad the Cubs didn't make the deal.

  • fb_avatar

    What I would like to see the Cubs do is to resign Garza. History says what you get back in these kinds of deals rarely outweighs what you gave up. What I think they will do is trade him before opening day. In fact, in order to maximize value, I think they have to. If they wait until the non-waivers trade deadline, his market becomes limited because the acquiring team can't get a draft pick for him. That won't mean much to a large market team, but it will mean everything to small and medium market clubs, and obviously, the more bidders the more likely you are to find a deal you can live with.

    I think teams who feel they're in the playoff hunt from the very beginning will watch Garza closely in spring training, and as long as he doesn't have any health issues, there will be a market for Garza before opening day.

    However, my hope is that they haven't given completely up on the idea of resigning Garza to a team friendly deal. I think that the injury increases the likelihood of Garza accepting such a deal.

    My understanding was that the hang up on extending Garza last season involved Garza's desire for a blanket NTC, which is something the Cubs should not do under any circumstances for any player ever. However, I could see giving him a limited NTC. I could also see working some sort of trade bonus into the extension. I could even see him having a clause in the extension which gave him the right to opt for free agency after the season if he were traded. I could see having a combination of all three things.

    There is also another advantage to extending Garza. By reestablishing his cost control for a number of seasons, you've probably also increased his trade value. Teams that might acquire him at the deadline would no longer have the lack of a draft pick as an issue.

    Extending Garza opens up all kinds of possibilities with regards to a trade, especially if he were pitching well going into July. Teams that might acquire him for a stretch run would then have the option of flipping him in the off season if they felt they couldn't afford to keep him around. Teams are more inclined to give up premium prospects when they know they're not just renting a player for a few months, or they know have the option of flipping a player for prospects themselves at some future point.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I like the idea. My guess is that the Cubs may be afraid to open that door with NTCs. even partal ones. An agent will jump on that and ask for one whenever a free agent considers the Cubs.

    If they can get him at good value, then it could very well help his trade value. Depends on the deal. On the other hand, the Cubs would have gotten Randall Delgado for a couple months of Dempster, so I would think that if Garza has a good year, they can still get a good young pitcher at the deadilne.

    Lots of good arguments and different viewpoints today on this complex issue.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed on Dempster and Delgado, but the Dempster deal was still slightly different. Dempster was 35, and the Cubs never had any intention of extending him. Garza is younger. Yes, the Cubs can still get value for Garza at the deadline as long as he is pitching well, and if that is the case, they should get more for him than they got for Dempster or could've gotten for Dempster.

    I'm mainly just saying that they may be limited as to the number of bidders. The lack of draft compensation makes Garza less attractive to teams with less revenue. However, you can never under-estimate the human element.

    Lets say Garza were pitching as well as Dempster was going into July. It's entirely possible that a small or medium market team with a good farm system finding itself in the hunt throws conventional wisdom out the door and goes for it because they don't know when or if they'll ever get another shot at a title.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I don't think the market for Garza would shrink that much at the trading deadline mostly because I think small market teams may not be interested regardless of the timing. Even if Garza were traded before opening day, draft pick compensation requires a qualifying offer. Budget-conscious, small-market teams might not be willing to make such an offer. After all, there were only nine qualifying offers made this year and only one of those came from a bona fide small market team (Tampa Bay). A small market team might not be willing to take the risk of a preseason trade because the cost of the compensation pick is a qualifying offer that might well be accepted if Garza were to have a down year. Basically, small market teams might already be out of the Garza sweepstakes regardless of when (or if) he is made available.

  • In regards to your specific question, I believe that Garza is still young, has improved his mound disposition, has proven that he is a good clubhouse presence, and has the tools to be a front of the rotation pitcher (I won't open the #1/2/3 can of worms).

    Many people seem focused on the lost opportunity to trade him last year, but that has nothing to do with the Garza himself. His trade value is near its lowest point, and won't improve too much until the trade deadline, when he becomes a rental. We haven't seen too many quality trades for pure rentals lately. That seems to lead to the conclusion that the Cubs should re-sign him.

    If they don't, I'd say their belief in his health is suspect. Unfortunately, if they don't sign him, this will send a clear signal all of the other teams as well, which will further depress his trade value....

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    I've thought about that too. If Cubs make no overtures to sign Garza, then teams may start to assume the Cubs are only to trade him. I guess if it builds a big enough market, that it won't matter, but that's certainly not the case right now, so I don't see the Cubs trading Garza, if they do trade him, until at least the spring.

  • I think the FO has to be careful because trading garza may get you names. What I mean by that is the players you get for garza may be good when making a prospect list but what if none of those prospects pan out. I think we get excited when some one say top prospect but half the top prospects in baseball don't pan out. So the cubs may have to sign garza to an ext and wait it out.

  • In reply to seankl:

    That is true, less than half actually, so there's risk, especially if you're not getting the guys you want.

  • fb_avatar

    It's all a question of getting the best value (and assuming the least risk). I voted to sign him now, because I don't think another team is going to give up enough value. Right now he's unproven health-wise, but a receiving team picks up a compensatory pick. End of spring training is probably the highest value possibility, since his health will (hopefully) be established and the pick is in play. By the break, his season is an actuality instead of potential, so if he's lights out then he might gain enough value to offset the lack of a pick. But if he's not having a season that's akin to 2010, then he actually loses value.

    Given that, I would guess that the Cubs have made it clear that he's available for a good offer. They might well have started laying groundwork for the kind of deal that would keep him in Chicago, assuming Garza is amenable to a team-friendly price. This will continue until at least half way through spring training when he re-signs if the deal is right or is traded if the offer is right. I'd be surprised if the Cubs start the season without one of those things happening. Of course if Garza holds out for top money or no other team steps up, then it could happen that way, but it's not ideal.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I would wait until the spring before making any decision for many of those same reasons. Much better idea on his health and he'll be closer to full market value. If they don't get an offer they like,they keep him and see how it goes in the season.

  • Another great article, John! Its also nice to see so many knowledgeable, serious Cub fans in one place! I think the Cubs should/wish they would extend Garza before the season for a couple of reasons. First is the dearth of quality free agent pitching available for the 2014 season. If Garza was a FA, one could make a case he'd be the best available SP in terms of value. Lincecum's resume is obviously better but since that'll command more money, I think a lot of teams would rather have Garza. Shields, Halladay, J. Santana, Lester all have options but Garza still compares very favorably with those guys. I respect all the opinions posted on here but I don't see how anyone sees Garza as a #3. If he's healthy (which is an IF that applies to any athlete, period) he's a fringy #1 IMO. Maybe a #1.75, if you will.
    Second reason though is what he'd bring in a trade. Look at who The Cubs traded for him. Nice players, no doubt. However, here we are two years later and none of those guys are exactly "helping" the Rays contend. Do we really think Garza will bring back a SP who projects to be better than he is?? Or a true impact bat? What he'd probably fetch are a couple of guys that project to be good/solid MLB regulars. The Cubs already have some of those guys. What you need to contend are warriors with no-hit stuff at or near the top of your rotation.
    When the Cubs are "ready to contend" in 2014 or 2015 I'd much rather have Matt Garza in his early 30's than a couple of unknowns. If we were to trade him for the equivalent of the Lee/Archer package right now could they help more than he could?? Chances are they couldn't. Hope the FO agrees and inks him to a team friendly-ish extension, he goes out a pitches really well and we can all talk about ADDING pieces at the deadline because the Cubs are somehow 50-45 or something like that, LOL! Optimism.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    Thanks Ben and totally agree on our readers. I believe we've heard from every view and everyone makes good points.

    Like your observation on next year's draft class, which isn't expected to be strong. That could be a motivating factor for locking up Garza early.

  • fb_avatar

    One thing I love about Garza is the camera shots of the Cubs dug out when he isn't pitching. He's always on the top step rooting his team mates on. He is definitely no Josh Beckett.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Gotta like that. If the Cubs did actually win with Garza still here, he'd probably be a folk hero.

  • This is kind of off the subject, but my question involves Garza, so I thought I'd bring it up here... Most everyone wants to rip the Marlins for their recent trade since they are giving up one year after spending big, but I tend to think what they did was a pretty slick move. My question is what if the Cubs had signed Reyes and Buerle last offseason and then traded them in along with Garza (who is comparable to Josh Johnson) and Barney (who I'll use to replace to Bonifacio) for the prospects the Blue Jays gave up. Would we be better off than we are right now? What I'm getting at is they signed some big names hoping to "win now" and when it didn't work out they traded them a year later for some solid prospects. It was a pretty big gamble as they are also stuck with a bad contract in Heath Bell, but from a rebuilding standpoint I think they might have something there.

  • In reply to Ibleedcubbieblue:

    I don't like the trade because, though it's nice that they got rid of these guys contracts, they set their timetable back about 5 years. They've also alienated their best player and most insiders believe they have virtually no chance of keeping him, which will set them back even further.

    Reyes and Johnson could have been core pieces for another 5 years at least. The guys they got back are good and could end up being MLB'ers, but won't be big difference-makers, in my opinion.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Exactly John.

    I only like the deal if your just trying to dump salary and pocket all that revenue sharing money, I,E Jeffrey Loria's point of view.

    For the fans and team, poor deal.

  • fb_avatar

    I would rather resign Garza than trade him. Especially if they can't trade him in spring training so his new team can get a compensation pick. Once the season starts his value will be less, just look at what Milwaukee got for Zack Greinke - a decent young SS but who lacks power, plus two mediocre prospect AA SP's, one who has averaged over 6 bb/9ip in his minor league career. They didn't get anyone who profiles as a #1 or #2 SP if everything clicks, just two mediocre guys, one might be a back of the rotation big league starter down the road but the other likely won't be a major leaguer. Solid SP is so hard to come by, and it's not like Garza is 34. And he likes Chicago and wants to play here, so extend him.

    But I also wouldn't be talking to Garza about an extension until we can see him pitch and make sure he hasn't lost anything, just to be safe.

  • Ideally, I'd like to see the Cubs sign him to a 3 year, $36 million deal with a 4th year option, incentives, and without a no-trade clause. This still gives them the option to trade him with a good chunk of team control (3 1/2 years at the deadline), or keep him at something of a low price.

    Given his elbow trouble, I have to believe Garza would take any fair extension, which, assuming it's not for an overbearing number of years, and doesn't have a no-trade clause, is a win-win for both sides.

  • In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    I could live with that.

  • KC DFAd 7 players to create 40-man roster space, including Volstad.

  • fb_avatar

    Resign Volstad!!


  • Saw that. That's why I don't think it should be surprising if Cubs let go of bullpen arms they recently picked up.

  • If all goes well, Garza will be pitching in July, and the trade demand will be heavy for him among teams in the A.L. East division.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Look at what Greinke brought. I can't see Garza bringing a huge package, especially if he isn't signed to an extension before trading him.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I've heard it said that the Cubs would have liked to have gotten a Greinke-like package for Garza last year.

    Those players:

    Alcides Escobar, SS
    Lorenzo Cain, CF
    Jake Odorizzi, RHP
    Jeremy Jeffress, RHP
    Yunesky Betancourt, IF

    2 years later, Escobar is an average SS and Odorizzi is a nice mid-rotation prospect. Lorenzo Cain looks like a decent CF'er. But really, nothing gained except some value as far as cost control. But none of those players are likely to put KC over the top.

    The trade route is risky, even when it goes as well as KCs did.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, forget comparing what Milwaukee gave up to get Grienke, that's not a fair comparison because Grienke was not going to bring compensation for his new team last year and Milwaukee got 2 years of Grienke control when they got him from KC. I'm saying look what the Angels gave up to get Grienke. No Cubs fan would be happy with a return like that for Garza, who will be in the same situation, except Garza is not as good of a pitcher as Grienke. The only difference is Milwaukee couldn't afford to keep Grienke while the Cubs can afford to keep Garza.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I figured you meant the Angels but I wanted to go back further and address "what could have been" had the Cubs traded Garza when he himself had two years of cost control The point was it was what the Cubs were rumored to have structured their asking rice. It's also telling that what KC got for Greinke was actually better than the norm -- and it's nothing to get really excited about.

    Maybe if they get down to the deadline and decide they don't want Garza back, I'll be willing to settle for something close to what Milwaukee got, but that's only if it appears Garza isn't coming back. The sad thing is that if Milwaukee gets an average 2B and a couple of relievers out of that deal, then they will have done very well.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Sometimes, a desperate team might over pay for a player like Garza if he stays healthy in July.......time will tell on what happens with Garza........I didn't see Greinke do too much for the Angels last season.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    If Garza hits the DL this season, he is worthless........better to get something for him then nothing......anyone willing to give this guy $15 million a year?....I thought not.

    QUESTION: Who you rather have on your Cubs 40 man roster Coleman or Volstad?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    If Garza hits the DL this year his trade value is worthless, yes, but he's still a good pitcher. He's 28. If we dump him for a handful of nothing we just have to find a way to replace him. It makes more sense to talk to him about an extension, if he's healthy.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    If you make trades based on fear that your pitcher will be on the DL, you're going to make a lot of bad trades.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Neither. If it truly was one or the other, Coleman. I don't think either one will ever pitch in the majors again absent a bunch of injuries for whatever team they sign to play for their AAA team.

  • I think what's changed for me a year later is that now I do see him as a #2, whereas last year at this time I'd bought into the idea of the Cubs selling him as a #1, and was a little miffed when the general sentiment was that other teams viewed him as a #2.

    I'm not sure what I'd do right now, depends on the package we could get back. I do think we're moving to some kind of "critical mass" where, with the rebuild progressing, the smart move goes from dealing him to extending him, assuming good health.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    I do think he's a #2. If he's your #3, you've got a great staff. If he's you're #1, you're probably a below average team.

  • Danica Patrick is a single woman again......

    Gentlemen....start your engines!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Better bring some condoms. I hear she gets around.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Really ?......You just ruined my "pure" image of Danica.........I did not know this........she does live in the fast lane of life........I hope your rumor is not true.

  • Yeesh. I don't know Houston's system and who they plan to protect but they just released a pretty good 26 year old RP in Mickey Storey. good peripherals and projects as a solid RP for next season.

    Are these guys even trying? I know he's just a relief pitcher but he's cost controlled for the next 5-6 years. Thats what you want on a "rebuilding" team.

    Wouldn't have minded having him on the Cubs but Yankees snatched him up.

    Also, the A's protected Michael Ynoa, so cross him off the list for those hoping to land a raw arm who is nowhwere near ready for MLB.

  • Meanwhile, the Cubs are content with their 40-man roster as it stands.

  • Plenty of time left to make a move...5 hours to go.

  • There's just so much information we're not privy to. And so many variables involved that rely on that insider info that it's really hard to make an educated guess here. As with last year at this time, I trust the F.O. to make the best value based decision when the proper time comes.

  • For those that have asked, the deadline for roster moves is at 11 pm central tonight.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Think Jed and Theo's cell phones are about to explode from excessive activity?

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Ha! Probably. I'm thinking that this could go down to the wire with the Cubs.

  • If the Cubs sign Garza for $15 million per year for five years, that will be a disaster..........he reminds me of Rich Harden.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I'm having trouble seeing how they're similar. They're night and day to me. Harden is much smaller, has had multiple injuries and surgeries to his shoulder, has a great change-up but throws about 3 mph slower, and doesn't really use a breaking ball.

    Then you have the taller, bigger Garza who's had one major injury - it was to his elbow, and it did not require surgery. He throws harder, does not have a good change but relies heavily on a very good slider.

  • WHO?

  • fb_avatar

    Another thing about Garza: he's big time fan friendly. How many other pitchers go out of their way to throw souvenir baseballs to each and every fan sitting behind first base in games they start?

  • fb_avatar

    Indians just made a bunch of moves to get their 40-man to 40. That strikes me as ominous for a Chisenhall deal. Maybe they can con the Padres out of Gyorko.

  • If you have OCD don't become a sports fan. You can never forget
    the "What if's" What if Garza would have healthy at the trading
    deadline? What top prospects would they have received? This
    takes years to forget. Don't trade him unless its to the team's
    best interest in the long run.

  • Cubs DFA'd LaHair...

  • Nick Struck was left exposed??!!!

  • AND sent Brigham back to the Rangers for Barrett Loux! A curious move...

Leave a comment