Wild, (nearly) groundless speculation on a big Cubs trade

Wild, (nearly) groundless speculation on a big Cubs trade

Cubs fans are itching for some real news but the rumor mill has been quiet lately.   That's just the way Theo and Jed like it.

That said, I'm going to present you with some wild speculation based on some pretty vague information.  It's based on  something I've been asked about by different readers/followers, but I'm putting a different twist on it.  It's more about a topic of discussion than news.  It's not even a legit rumor, for that matter.

Okay, so I've had a few people ask me about a Jed Hoyer radio appearance on MLBN radio that comes via Bleacher Nation via one of their readers.

The reader, "Jacob", sums up the radio interview thusly...

  • With length of the deal as the question about position players, he said the Cubs are looking at a position player with a ‘similar type of deal’ (As EJax (Michael Bourn?)).
  • When asked directly about Bourn – “Can’t comment on individual free agents.” “Center field is a position both short term and long term that we’ll be looking to improve.”
  • Said that they’re pretty much done adding pitching, now will focus on position players.
  • Looking to mold after the A’s/Orioles and build while contending. Won’t look past any one year, but will focus on making moves that improve the future. Won’t make moves that hurt the future for 2013.

Jacob admits it may not be word for word and because of that it's subject to all sorts of interpretation, including Jacob's own speculation/guess that Hoyer is referring to Michael Bourn.

My first reaction? It's too vague.

Now, let's assume this is all true as written. If Hoyer is specifically talking about free agents, then the only free agent who makes sense in terms of "similar type deal (as EJax)" and position player and a genuine need for the Cubs, then it must be Bourn.

But...that's not exactly what it says according to the provided transcript.  I don't have context (was the topic specifically free agency?) nor word-for-word accuracy (if  you do or have heard the interview, please let me know).  I can only go with what's provided above and I'm only interpreting based on that information.

Here are my issues with the statements as written...

  • It only says the Cubs "are looking at a position player 'with a similar type deal (as EJax)'.
  • The Cubs CF response stems from a direct response to a follow-up question by the interviewer and is not necessarily connected to the prior statement.
  • It says later that the Cubs want to focus on improving the future.  They won't sacrifice the future for 2013.  Well, as we learned yesterday, giving up a draft pick is sacrificing the future as far as the Cubs are concerned.  And while it could be said the Cubs could sign Bourn beyond 2013, his impact is likely to lessen beyond that year.  Signing Bourn wouldn't only be about 2013, but that is likely to be where the Cubs would get the most value.

So even if I assume that the reader heard correctly, there's still not information to assume this is necessarily about Michael Bourn.  If anything, there's too much contradiction between the individual statements made by Hoyer, not to mention Theo and Jed's words on draft pick compensation/free agency yesterday.

So what else could it mean?

This is what we think we know based on the interview...

  • The Cubs are pursuing a position player...
  •  ...with a deal like Edwin Jackson's
  • The Cubs want to add long term pieces.  They do not want to hurt the future for just 2013 and prefer not to give up a draft pick.
  • The generic statement about CF was not made as part of the response to the one about pursuing a position player.  It was a response to a follow-up question and we cannot say with any certainty that there's a connection.  So for this exercise, I'm throwing it out.

So, if not a free agent, then...trade?

My mind then started racing to think of position players who may be available for trade, and with a deal like Edwin Jackson's, and who would be about helping the future, not just 2013.

One name fit that criteria.  Justin Upton.

  • He's a position player.
  • He has a deal very much like Edwin Jackson's.  Jackson signed a 4 year/$52M deal.   Take away the $8M signing bonus and it's a 4 year/$44m deal.  Upton has 4 years and has just over $45M left on it.
  • The move wouldn't be just for 2013.  In fact, at just 25 years old, his peak years start around 2015, when the Cubs expect to contend.  The Cubs wouldn't have to give up a draft pick.

The Diamondbacks already have their long-term SS, so Starlin Castro isn't in the equation.  He would not be even if the D'Backs hadn't traded for Didi Gregorius.  But with SS out of the discussion, the Cubs may have more of a genuine interest now.

I'm not going to speculate too much on names, but there's this tweet earlier in the offseason from Ken Rosenthal where the D'Backs were alternately interested in a SP.  In this scenario, the pitcher was from Tampa (presumably Jeremy Hellickson or James Shields before he was traded to the Royals).

There's also the speculation earlier on MLBTradeRumors that the Rangers may be interested in dealing Derek Holland in an Upton deal, and then Buster Olney tweeted the Braves might have an advantage because of their "surplus of pitching".

The Cubs could use Matt Garza as a centerpiece.

He doesn't have the long term value that Holland or the Rays or Braves young pitchers do, but he is in the same class of talent, perhaps more.  Even still, the Cubs would likely have to add a prospect or two to give the D'Backs back some of that long term value they lose with Upton.  Using Garza as a centerpiece, however, will reduce the amount of prospect value the Cubs would potentially have to give up.

So that's my wild speculation...what's yours? (By the way, if I get this right, I'm buying a lottery ticket the very next day).

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I don't think that gets it done. They're going to want a lot more than Garza for 4 years of Upton. Not "meh" prospects, but I'd bet one out of Soler, Almora and Baez.

    Here's a question. Justin Upton for Jeff Samardzija. Who says no?

    Both will be FAs after 2015. Upton is locked into a contract while Samardzija will be arb eligible after next year (I think). Upton is 25 while Samardzija will be 28 on opening day.

    Just thinking through what Theo and Jed might be thinking:

    You're buying low on Upton, but he's only 25. He took a bit of a dip last year, but you'll get 4 years of his prime.

    Samardzija had a good year last year, but are you selling high there? Guy will be 28, in the thick of his prime, but you aren't planning on contending this year, so that's wasted.

    If I'm the Diamondbacks, I think I'm saying no.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I don't think a Samardzija deal would have traction on either side.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Does Samardzija still have that Hendry provided NTC?

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I was totally following John's logic until he said for Garza.

    Samardzija is the one that would make logical sense in this scenario. I imagine the Cubs would have to throw in a minor prospect or 2. But it's intriguing. I'd be tempted.

    We could sign Garza long term to fill the SP hole. Garza seems like he really likes being a Cub... stranger things have happened.

  • In reply to MrBillySir:

    I wouldn't give up Samardzija for Upton. Can't trade core pieces for other core pieces, not going to get far that way. I don't see the Cubs trading Samardzija at all because 1) he's a core player and 2) other teams don't yet value him as highly as the Cubs do.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Sure you can. If you're trading a core piece for what you perceive as a better core piece, then you make the deal (provided you can't find a deal that makes even more sense).

  • I think you are correct in that Upton is going to be traded...but not to the Cubs. However, I think the Cubs will be involved in the Upton deal. I think the Rangers, Cubs, and Diamondbacks will swing a three way trade with Upton going to Texas, Garza and DeJesus go to Arizona, and maybe Soriano goes to Texas, and the Cubs get several prospects including Mike Olt from Texas and Mike Davidson from Arizona. In addition, 3 Class A pitchers and 1 catcher in tow.

  • In reply to historyrat:

    I love that scenario. Let's get it done.

  • In reply to historyrat:

    That one has a lot more moving parts and complexity, but I like the result.

  • fb_avatar

    I'd rather have some young SP prospect(s) for Garza. They're so hard to come by, if we can add a good one or two in any package that makes more sense to me than any hitter.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I like Upton too, though. At the same time, Im a little wary since AZ is so willing to deal him. What gives?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    And why do they keep signing 32 year old inconsistent OF's and then shop a 25 year old?

    There are too many red flags here, but I just wouldn't trade any of our most valuable assets unless we get back good young pitching. Pitchers get hurt, they flame out, etc. etc. We need a large stockpile of good young pitchers and then we can cross our fingers and expect that 1/3rd to 1/4th of them pan out (or less, that's just how it works).

    Hitters are easy to get by comparison, and Upton is all projection at this point.

    What exactly would we be getting from Upton? Two of his last three seasons were 17 hr's and fewer than 70 rbi's. A WAR (baseball-reference WAR) of 1.4 and 2.1. It's not very hard to find guys who can do that. Even Schuerholtz could put up those kind of numbers, save us $7-12 million per year over Upton, and not have to give up anything to get.

    Upton is tantalizing only for what he might become, not what he currently is. He is currently an overpaid project.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    He's been inconsistent and he's cost-controlled but not dirt cheap, so I don't understand the huge packages people are saying it would take. I wouldn't trade any of the core players for him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree. He's interesting, but at this point his production doesn't match his salary. That's probably all there is to why Towers is shopping him. But why they keep signing guys like Ross and Kubel and then shop Upton, still a head scratcher. Towers of course though knows what kind of offers he's already received for Upton, so maybe he can get a nice package of prospects for him and he's just choosing the best offer.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    He's 25. That's why people are offering big packages. Peak years ahead and he's had some great years in the past.

  • Garza would have to agree to an extension with the D-backs most likely before a trade gets done. Arizona is not the best place for pitchers.

    I don't think the Cubs have enough young arms to get it done. D-Backs will be looking for pitching since it's harder to entice them to come there.

  • In reply to givejonadollar:

    I think that makes sense. Good points.

  • fb_avatar

    if the Cubs think they are close to winning if they solidify a couple positions, it's because they have Garza in the rotation, not as a trade piece. Garza isn't going anywhere under the get-a-big-OFer scenario.

  • In reply to Harry Pavlidis:

    They need Garza to really have a chance this year but the part that makes me think they'd consider it is when Theo said he'd err on the side of long term thinking. Upton could be a core piece for the Cubs by the time they really get competitive. A lot depends on what their long term plans are for Garza.

  • The only thing I needed to hear and want to believe is the comp between Oak and Bal. Why not?

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Big fan of the long term process, but also appreciate that they won't be giving any year away, even during the rebuilding. I like it.

  • Who do you think the Cubs would have to throw in with Garza to get Upton ? Also would the diamondbacks include anyone else?

  • I think the cubs would LOVE to trade Garza if they could get anything near what his worth would have ben without his injury. Signing him to an extension would be a last resort for them.

    I agree that it would take quite a bit more than one year of Garza to get Upton. Probably at least a Baez and either Soler or (if the Cubs were lucky) 3 or 4 prospects in the 6 - 15 range.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    I'd say no if that was their offer. Upton too inconsistent to demand that huge of a return. They're obviously willing to trade him despite his age/contract, so I'd be wary of giving that kind of package of prospects for a guy they don't want.

    This is the team, after all, that gave Trevor Bauer up for just Didi Gregorius. Nobody thought he'd be that cheap. I'd sweat them out. Cubs don't have a strong incentive to make a deal, so let them try and get a better offer. If they do, no big loss.

  • Upton has a small no-trade with 5 teams he can't be traded to. The Cubs are one of those 5 teams. That hasn't changed has it?

    I don't see how Garza can even be considered "tradeable" much less a center piece for an all-star callibur player.

    My guess is that with pitching, young pitching young power pitching, young power controllable pitching, that it's the Cubs that say no in a Samardzija-Upton swap by the way.....

    Hasn't Upton's plateaued 2011 and 2012 made anyone hesitant about labeling this guy as a "must have"?

    Good god. Everyone here is expecting Starlin Castro to have a breakout year after making several adjustments at just the age of 22. If he continues putting up the same kind of stats that he did these past two years, everyone will lose their fricking mud. Well Justin Upton has done just that!!!!!! and yet here we are openly suggesting that we trade either the Cubs #1 or #2 pitcher for him.....

    How the hell did this happen? I'm supposed to be the one that does all the speculative, off-the-handle, just for fun crap. And Arguello is suppose to be the reasonable one. How died we switch roles? Is this the bizzarro Cubs Den or something? How much Elliot Ness beer have i actually drank tonight?!!!????!

  • In reply to felzz:

    It's like one of those bad 1980s movies where two very different people switch bodies and each becomes a fish out of water, leading to all sorts of hi-jinks. The good news is that in the end, when we switch back, we'll have learned life lessons and we'll both be the wiser for it.

  • In reply to felzz:

    I don't know if anything has changed but I do recall reading that the Cubs were on Upton's list of teams to which he could block a trade. Just as well I think....too many red flags for me to be keen on the Cubs acquiring him. I wonder if he can block a trade to Miami though? Arizona wants to deal Upton and Stanton wants out of Miami.....hmmm, maybe Theo and Jed are busy working on a mega three team trade....Upton to Miami, Stanton to the Cubs, with Chicago giving up Baez and Soler and a couple lesser prospects. Stanton is who we all hope Soler will come close to resembling one day.

  • In reply to felzz:

    Oh...in regards to Upton and his NTC list, I don't think the Cubs are on it anymore, but even if they were it's usually just a formality. Players often put big market teams on their list to increase their leverage. It's those crafty agents.

  • fb_avatar

    John, I'm kind of in agreement with felzzy on this one. Until Garza proves he is 100%, he's not trade bait, but I do have another thought for you in regards to Upton. Think about what the D'backs gave up to get Gregerious. Might they sell low on Upton?

    As for your interpretation of the Hoyer interview, I agree. Way to much was read into that, and the interpretation doesn't jive with what Epstein said. I'm trying to find the podcast of that interview so I can get context, but it's not been posted yet.

    Some things per out email discussion about Bourn. I don't think the FO sees him as a fit. I think they'd rather have the draft pick. The Dodgers are said to be the likely destination for Bourn, but they're waiting on finding a landing place for Ethier before they pull the trigger. Cubs feigning interest in Bourn could have some positive results.

    First, consider what happened with the Dodgers over Dempster. Would this FO be beyond driving the Dodgers' eventual cost for Bourn up as payback?

    Second, baseball is political. Could they be driving up Bourn's cost as a favor to Scott Boras in hopes of getting considerations from him over a client of his they do really want at a later date? Boras certainly isn't beyond doing business that way.

    Finally, the average Cubs fan isn't as savy as the average Cubs Den reader. Having the fan base think you're doing your best to acquire brand name free agents, even if you don't get them, doesn't hurt the cause.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    It certainly wouldn't surprise me if Theo was doing Boras a favor to be repaid later. They havent' directly stated interest, but they haven't directly denied it either. It's enough to make other team wonder and maybe get a little nervous.

    As for payback to the Dodgers, not sure on that. Sounds a little Macchiavellian :)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Screwing the Dodgers over would not be a primary aim of this FO, but it might be icing on the cake.

  • Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN
    J.P. Howell agreed to terms with the Dodgers. A left-hander for a very deep bullpen.

    Cubs were interested at one point...got one year, $3M...would've been a nice second lefty out of the pen.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    Not a big fan of Howell. A bit overrated, imo. Not worth 3M.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    But remember, that's $3 million Dodger dollars. Which is like a league minimum contract to normal teams.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I think if Scooby Doo pulled the mask off Ned Colletti we would find Jim Hendry hiding under there.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    And he would have gotten away with if it weren't for those meddling kids.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    Ha! Just found out he can make up to $4M...It's like monopoly money!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I cannot even begin to express how badly I want that team to choke.

  • Upton certainly fits in quite nicely with the plan. On surface anyway. I' 've talked with a couple of friends who are still playing, one of whom is a former teammate of Upton' s....they Don' t have a lot of nice things to say. I mean, the guys been a "stud" and all over the radar since he was twelve. First pick in the draft, big bonus baby, in the big leagues as a teenager....those things often Don' t translate to coachability at the big league level. It's kinda the Barry Bonds "silver baseball spoon" syndrome. Notice how Upton being shopped kinda coincides with Gibson's hiring. Pretty sure Gibby hates his guts. He' s a real no nonsense guy with a very credible rep in a big league clubhouse....super solid big league resume. I think the Bauer deal was a similar situation. They were willing to sell somewhat low because Gibby wanted him gone. These things are hard to substantiate since no FO in the world will blast a former player for being a bad teammate and having a bad attitude. Just too bad for future free agent business. There are red flags all over Upton though. As far as trading for him...I' d be ok with a prospect package headed by Soler (since his ceiling is basically Justin Upton). Not Garz or Samardzija. There aren't enough arms in our system to get it done more than likely. Honestly though, I agree with John in that we should wait them out. By the time spring training rolls around, he may not be as expensive as we think. They''re saying they're not shopping him...blah blah blah. They have to say that to keep some leverage. They don't want him anymore.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    Kirk Gibson: "Hey...Ken Kendrick...Kevin Towers....I know you guys sign my checks...but before you sign another one...get these assholes out of my clubhouse! Thank you."

  • In reply to Ben20:

    Interesting stuff, Ben. Completely agree on those red flags. It definitely fits AZs pattern with Bauer.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ben20:

    I think Sveum is in the Kirk Gibson mold of a no-nonsense guy. Another reason that Upton wouldn't be a good fit here.

  • I think the most I'd be willing to give up is Garza + Vogelbach (top 5 prospect on most lists) + 1 high ceiling SP (Maples) and probably a throw-in top 20 prospect for Upton and probably Patrick Corbin. Though I'm not really sure that gets it done or if DBacks have any motive to make this trade. DBacks have Goldschidmt so not sure this gets done or if they would even want Maples. Or any of our SP prospects really, considering their all in the low minors.

  • In reply to Furiousjeff:

    That type of framework would be my max too.

  • fb_avatar

    So what other under-30 players might the Cubs be looking at in trade, going by Hoyer's comments?

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I thought about this too and really struggled coming up with names, mostly due to the contract portion of the criteria. Position players making $11-13M a year are either not under 30 or are guys I can't picture going anywhere.

    The only real names I came up with were Ryan Zimmerman, Andrew McCutchen, and Dustin Pedroia. And I honestly can't see any of them being traded. After that, it was names like Nick Markakis or Alex Gordon...

  • MLB Trade Rumors ‏@mlbtraderumors
    Cubs Sign Dontrelle Willis http://bit.ly/XtrBei #mlb

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to North Side Irish:

    Wow. Just wow.

  • Hey Cubs signed Dontrelle Willis again. Straight minor league deal, no ST invite.

  • Resurrect yourself, D Train!! One time!

  • In reply to Ben20:

    LOL...and let him hit!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I wonder if he could resurrect himself in the bullpen. If he's got anything left, that pitching motion would be holy hell to pick up from a reliever.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    Who would have thought at the time the best player involved in that trade would be Matt Clement?

  • I have been a big proponent of Upton. As I may have mentioned before , it reminds me of the type of opportunities that STL took advantage of in the late '90s-early 2000's ( Edmonds, Rolen, Renteria). In all three cases , STL took advantage of an extremely talented, young player being put on the mkt and turned them into a core piece. Remember how good those teams were and what a truly solid "core" they had? Do you remember any of the guys moved by STL? I remember some of them but that's only because I spend too much time reading/thinking about baseball. If Upton were 30, I could understand the hesitancy. The only holdback for me would be well-documented, significant character/attitude problems.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Carl9730:

    Edmonds was 30 when the Cards traded Kent Bottenfield (former Cub) and Adam Kennedy to Anaheim for him.

    Rolen was only 27 and in his prime when the Phillies traded him for Placido Polanco and a ham sandwich named Bud Smith, who never played in the majors again, and 36 year old Mike Timlin. If I recall correctly, Larry Bowa was the Phillies manager and didn't get along with Rolen, so they sold low on him. At least looking back now they sold low.

    Renteria was 22 and part of one of the Marlins many fire sales when they shipped him to STL for Pablo Ozuna, RP Armando Almanza, and RP Braden Looper.

    I think all 3 of those trades show the risks of dealing an established, good, relatively young (in Edmonds' case 30, but otherwise 22 and 27) player for a package. And Bottenfield had a career year in STL and they sold high on him, picking up an injured Edmonds at the time.

    All 3 were fantastic trades for STL.

  • There are some cases that run counter to the theory but more often than not established players for prospect trades work in favor of the established player. I don't suggest that you empty the farm for the first decent vet that comes on the market but Upton is , undeniably
    , a great talent with significant ML success under his belt, if not a polished superstar. This isn't a short-term, win-now move like the Dickey trade but is a strategic move with the long-term look of the club in mind.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    I wouldn't mind a trade for him, but I don't want to trade a core MLB player or a top 3 prospect for him. Too many questions and AZ is a motivated seller here. They don't seem to like him. This is the 2nd offseason where they've talked about it. If it's once, I think maybe they're trying to send a message. If it's twice, I start to get worried why a team has tried multiple times to trade a superstar when they don't have holes in their pitching, lineup or farm system. In fact, their biggest hole would be the power void they'd create with Upton's departure.

  • I predict that the Cubs add either Bourn, Upton or Dontrelle Willis.

  • 1 out of 3!

  • fb_avatar

    If the Cubs sign Bourn, it will be the first move the new FO has made that really baffles me.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Agreed. Just doesn't seem to fit their long term plan.

  • You predicted the Feldman and Baker signings, so I'm thinking a trade for Upton is in the bag.

  • In reply to Diggs:

    Ha! I wouldn't put money it :) This would be a big one, but I don't think the Cubs do it if it disrupts their core. I wouldn't trade Baez or Almora -- and I'm not sure on Soler either. I think they do this if they can get him relatively cheap, and that may not be possible. Then again, I wouldn't have believed AZ would trade Bauer for Gregorius.

  • Maybe some kind of super package involving Samardzija? I'd hate to give him up and not sure they would, but it's occurred to me for awhile now that he's exactly what they'd like to do with Carlos Villanueva - take a relief pitcher and increase his value by making him a starter. Seems like their MO. But cost controlled front end starters are so valuable, I doubt it happens now. I'm guessing that was their plan to begin with, but he outperformed it. Never know though, maybe they're not sold on him and think they should sell high.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    They won't deal Samardzija for Upton. They like him a lot. He's a cost controlled potential front of the rotation guy. He's 28, but his arm has low miles and he keeps himself in great shape. Can see him pitching another 10 years.

    He's also a guy they've identified as a core guy and they're not going to deal those players easily. They're trying to build a core and if you trade part of it to try and obtain another part, it just defeats the purpose of building. It turns into rearranging furniture. The key is to build long term players -- and to convert short term assets into long term assets. That deal wouldn't fit their MO at all.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Unless they don't consider Samardzija a core piece or think they can get multiple core pieces back, I agree. But it's still fun to think of what kind of package we could get for him in that same spirit of wild groundless speculation. His value's gone through the roof. In retrospect, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the front office who lit a fire under him to start.

  • fb_avatar

    Upton is an absolute nightmare trade, IMO.

    Upton reeks of disappointment to me. The words "unfulfilled potential" seem perfect for him.

    Trading Garza would be as almost as much of a waste vas trading valuable prospects.

    Honestly, I'd rather have Olt.

    An outfielder bus an outfielder. A good defensive 3b with great power and great OBP is far more valuable.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    There are certainly some red flags with him. I certainly wouldn't trade any of their core players or top prospects. Maybe that means they don't get him, but there's no way the Cubs should be paying big for him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed. If they want to structure a deal around Vitters, Jackson, Soriano, or Marmol... I'd be excited about that. Because even the red flags would be worth it then. But that deal will NEVER happen, obviously.(I proposed those names for the sake of ridiculousness)

    If I was Jedstein, the conversation would end the second names like Soler, Almora, or even Vogelbach popped up.

    And if they mention Baez, I'm assuming they would scream "prank caller!" into the phone and hang up.

    We need as many prospects as possible to make a run at Price.
    We need Garza for the Rangers trade that I still REALLY hope happens.
    (ESPN recently proposed the Rangers package Profar and Olt+ for G. Stanton and Nolasco. I almost had a panic attack thinking about how perfect that is.

  • I think they should pick up chris Dickerson. Just dfa'd by Yankees. Seems to have potential & some power & speed. Yes, he's 30, but hasnt really ever played everyday. Cheap, & doesn't need to be on 40 man i don't think. Idk, u tell me. What do u guys know about him?

  • Please explain to me how an organization with limited pitching talent depth in the higher levels of the minor leagues, could trade their one long term tested piece, Jeff Samardzija, and create benefit for the Cubs future? This is light of the fact that one of their deeper talent pools is in their outfield prospects. In my opinion CF is a short term issue, indeed! I would love to trade Garza for Upton. I would trade Sczcur and Garza for Upton. But Samardzija is going nowhere! He is a future #2 in my opinion at the least.

  • If Upton is not good enough for Gibby's clubhouse than he is not good enough for ours. He makes the rumors about the Cubs interest in Bourn seem like agood idea. At least we get a good team guy who can lead off and play centerfield and it will only cost money and one high future draft pick. I guess it depends on the FO assessment of our future in house cf situation.

  • I think instead of going after Justin Upton the cubs should focus on getting Dominic Brown from Philly. Both Brown and Upton have similar ceilings and although Upton is closer to reaching his than Brown I'm not so sure he's less of a risk. Upton is already being paid decent money and Brown is still prearb. Upton would cost a pretty legitimate package and Brown could cost just soriano, maybe a little more, but nothing close to an Upton package. I think it makes sense to forget about Upton, go after Brown and try and move Garza for pitching (if they decide to move him). If Brown doesn't work out we probably gain a higher draft pick in next years draft and all we lost was soriano. If Upton doesn't work out we will have lost something of legitimate value and that wouldn't sit well with me.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jshmoran:

    Well, we know they've tried to do that, but Philly has always liked Brown a lot. They seem disinclined to give up on him just yet. To be fair to them: how would we feel about moving Brett Jackson for a guy like Soriano?

  • Ok John, Check this idea that's been in my head the last day or two. With Bourn having Scott Boras as his Agent, I don't see the Cubs acquiring him. Why would the Cubs dangle Garza, a draft pick and probably a load of dough. Maybe for Upton,

  • I wanted to jump in with some groundless speculation myself on Upton:
    http://www.givejonadollar.com/2013/01/what-would-it-take-for-chicago-cubs-to.html

  • The Cubs are on Upton's list of teams he can't be traded to.

Leave a comment