Garza deal falls through after exchange of meds

Garza deal falls through after exchange of meds

The Matt Garza deal officially fell through and though Texas is still not out of it, there isn't a lot of hope they can get something together.  The Cubs are exploring deals with other teams.  Everyone is back in the game and one of which is the Washington Nationals, who we believe was the mystery team involved.

The Cubs goal is still to trade him by Monday.

It's unclear which team backed out but a Yahoo report by Jeff Passan states that the Rangers continued to pursue a deal, so it may have been players from their side.   Many Texas players rumored in the deal: Neftali Feliz, Mike Olt, and Neil Ramirez have had medical issues in the past, so it's very plausible that it's the Cubs who backed out.

UPDATE: We are hearing that it was meds on the Texas Rangers side and that it was one of the pitchers.

The Nationals were said to be interested in a second player and Passan speculates it may have been LHP James Russell.

UPDATE 10:15 PM: It appears no deal will get done tonight, according to MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan.

The two sides may pick it up tomorrow but right now there is nothing happening. It may get done at some point, it may not. But tonight is not the night

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Keep Garza, we have a great starting staff. If we can't get what we want it doesn't matter. Sign him long term. We have other pieces to trade...Soriano & Castro will bring value. We have the rotation, build a bull pen & bring up the prospects & let them play baseball. Quit over analyzing.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Uh... the Cubs aren't trading Castro...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Lol where do you guys get this stuff from. Cubs aren't trading Castro for the millionth time.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    It would be difficult to trade someone a million times. If you made a trade every minute, it would take about two years to make one million trades.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    If they make say 4 trades a minute that would speed it up. That is about the rate that I checked for updates today. Lake looks like he wants to stay up!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    The Cubs are doing the right thing IMO. The Cubs are in this situation because for years they have traded away their young talent in the minors or on the MLB team for vets who were suppose to be that missing piece and that plan never panned out while that young talent we sent packing turned out to be big stars or contributing members to a championship team elsewhere. Lets change things up a little by keeping our young talent, develop them and see what happens. I'm all in with Theo and the crew keep up the good work fellas.

  • In reply to Eric Wansley:

    I am too. I think the Cubs really need to get value in this deal. Otherwise a deal just isn't worth it.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Castro isn't going anywhere.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Matt Garza knows he's going to be the #1 pitcher on the market this off-season.

    Just because it makes sense for the Cubs to extend him doesn't mean Garza will accept an offer.

    Lets see if you're Garza...
    Sign an extension now (assuming the Cubs offer something)
    or
    Weigh many offers in the off-season which will probably still include any offer the Cubs threw out there.

    It makes no sense for Garza to sign an extension right now...I mean unless you're one of the people that thinks he's going to get hurt and in that case every player should sign an extension prematurely because of injury risk.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    And Soriano doesn't have any real value. That's why we talk to people -- and yes, why we analyze. We're not throwing things out there.

  • In reply to Roe Skidmore:

    Who wants to bet the Cubs sign Jair Jurrjens to a minor league deal before they trade Gregg to Boston?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GotBoson?:

    Jurrjens has no value, why?

  • Whoa, that's kind of crazy. Let's hope it wasn't Garza.

    Makes sense now why there was such a long lull. Doctors from one of the teams were probably looking hard at the medicals and finally decided something wasn't right.

    Back to the drawing board, I guess. Hope we can still find a good package out there.

  • fb_avatar

    It's hard to see the Nationals getting Garza and Russell and the Cubs not getting Rendon back as the centerpiece of that deal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Giolito.
    The Nationals aren't going to give up a contributor of a contending ballclub.

    We need young pitching.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Zero chance Cubs can get Rendon.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StatHead:

    Zero chance they get Giolito unless there is more to the trade.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Canter:

    Eh, I think he's on the table.
    Too far away to help a "win now" club.
    And Rizzo isn't afraid to deal prospects for established talent.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    They could probably build a deal around AJ Cole and Giolito easily.

    That being said, the Nats' system is really thin, so one of those 2 guys would almost have to be the centerpiece, regardless of if Russell is included or not. Unless the Cubs thought highly of Brian Goodwin after he's slumped a bit this year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Washington's system is not thin. It is thinner. But as far as what the Cubs could actually get for Garza (not Goodwin, not Giolito), AJ Cole would be a nice piece, Nate Kearns I like but labrum surgery means he eventually is a reliever. Matt Purke I like, but he should be a closer in my opinion.

    Thinking the Cubs would get Giolito and Cole is preposterous. Garza's value did not increase when the Rangers trade fell through in all likelihood.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Rendon is a good player, but hes not what this team needs. Golioto is the starting point with them, just like if AZ wants Garza, start by discussing Bradley or Skaggs.

  • fb_avatar

    Disagree.
    You can turn a short-term asset into an arm that can contribute by the time our core is big league ready.
    Trading Castro when his value is this low is an awful idea. And the value in return for Soriano will depend on us eating 80% of the contract.

    We're still in this rebuild.
    No sense in abandoning that concept before completion.

  • Could this be part of the dance? Tell them your out, let them panic while you enjoy a Pearl Jam concert and they come back with a stronger prospect.

  • fb_avatar

    wow. just. wow. although this one appears to have been totally out of the Cubs' control, I'd still classify this as a Cubbie Occurance because it probably means they'll get a lesser deal from Washington (or whoever). Once the trading partner you had your best deal with is out, your leverage with the next runner up is way down.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SKMD:

    Absolutely. You can make quite a list from the last couple years on Cubs deals that have fallen through.

  • In reply to SKMD:

    not if Texass is giving you damaged goods.

  • fb_avatar

    Hi John
    That's disappointing to hear. I'm watching the Iowa Cubs and Round Rock Express (yes Olt continues to look over matched) and have wondered if he'd walk across the field to the Cubs dugout today. You know even with Josh Vitters back, this is a pretty woeful AAA team. Glad there is more in the pipeline in the lower levels.

  • In reply to Hal McCarty:

    You realize that they are in first place right? Of course most of the lineup besides Watkins is 30+ years old, so there isn't really any prospects there. I'm talking position players not pitchers.

    But I wouldn't say they are woeful, they are a solid AAA team they just don't have any real prospects.

  • fb_avatar

    I really like Garza.
    But re-signing him anything beyond 3-4 years in a real gamble.
    By 2015, he'll be starting to decline, and we'll have a ton of money tied up in the back-end of the rotation rather than the front.

    If Matt wants to come back for 3 years/38 million, I do that...
    After I trade him and acquire whatever arms we can get.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    No matter if he is a two or three he is worth more than 13 mil a year. To get him for six years at that rate would be a deal, if you go shorter you need to increase the annual.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleedblue:

    That's the ole' hometown discount offer.
    Overpaying for anyone right now isn't in the Cubs best interest.
    If Matt liked it here, the door's open. If not, good luck to him-
    I agree, it's looking more like an Anibel Sanchez kind of contract on the open market.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    My point is that isn't even in the ballpark. Offer 3 years for league minimum, the response is the same.

  • When you get 99% done on something and it falls through it is hard capturing the same value. Obviously it is the package we liked best and now the Rangers are more or less out of it.

    Two years in a row something crazy goes down in a mid season trade in our rebuild. Boy this is fun!

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Agreed. Although maybe the Rangers knew something would come up on one of their players and that's why and that's why they offered him. So the deal wasn't quite as good as it appeared.

    At least I hope that's the case, because if it was the Rangers concerned with Garza's medicals, then things could get bad.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleedblue:

    With all the names that were being tossed around it seems slightly amazing that this killed the deal. The Rangers must not have been hugely motivated to make this deal.

  • I'd bet almost anything that it was Mike Olt's medicals.

    The Rangers still wanted the deal to go down so it was NOT Garza.

    That's why the reports say that the Rangers are still in it but it's much less probable, because the Rangers REALLY REALLY wanted Mike Olt to be a part of the package, they are still "trying" to assemble a deal of equal value with out Olt but it pretty much took the wind out of the Texas Sails. THIS IS TOTAL SPECULATION but their HAVE been murmurs that perhaps their is something ele going on with Olt besides the tear duct issue that he has drops for now.

    Oh well, hopefully the Nationals or Diamondbacks come in strong.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Man, how glad are the Cubs that they didn't wait until the deadline to get this deep in negotiations otherwise we could be really scrwed right now.

    Instead their is still plenty of time to assemble new bids without losing leverage.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    I was thinking that too. Still plenty of time to make a deal.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    They wanted Garza, but they may not have wanted Garza at the same price. That's what's unclear. Maybe they saw something that made them think he'd break down and decided they wanted him still, but at half the price.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    That is a legitimate point.

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    The med record issue was with Texas, as we just updated in the article.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    It was medical on the Texas side. The Cubs pulled out of the deal as is.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    We don't know that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    Sorry, we do know that. So why can't the two sides just swap in a different player or two? It's not like the pitching names we were hearing coming back are sure fire studs. Edwards and Ramirez have their own issues. If either guy is the red flag medical report, Ramirez might be the one. He had a horrendously bad 2012 season, out of place for his career, ERA almost 8.00.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    It seems unlikely to me that an issue with Olt killed the whole deal. His being part of the package meant almost nothing to me, other than the fact that it would sting if by some miracle he turned things around at age 25.

  • They should re-sign Garza for 2-3 years....if the FO needs to trade some assets I would trade Samardzija

  • BN reporting that Jim Bowden says the Nats are NOT in on Garza.

    Also read someone say that the problem with the meds was with Olt and that the Cubs were looking for a PTBNL if he isn't healthy.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    link on Bowden:

    twitter.com/JimBowdenESPNxm/status/358394829660631041

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    of course that is three hours ago

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    or not. guessing pacific time.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    And the Rangers weren't OK with that? The PTBNL could have been structured so that the better the Rangers did, or Garza did, the better the player.

  • John just says he was told that a Rangers pitcher failed his medicals and it's not related to Garza. So that's good.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    So Ramirez or Edwards failed med........ Texas just needs to replace him with Luke Jackson and we should be good to go.

  • Probably Ramirez. He was scratched his last start with shoulder soreness.

  • BREAKING:

    JIM BOWDEN ‏@JimBowdenESPNxm 2m
    Rangers - Cubs both working hard to complete deal involving Matt Garza by trying to find a replacement for player w questionable medicals

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Woohoo, Get er' Done!

  • fb_avatar

    Yeah sure , lets believe Bowden!!! The guy has absolutely zero creditability.

  • In reply to Sportsgod:

    Yes. He tweeted it 2 minutes ago, and he has been on this story from the start.

    So he obviously has someone in the know that he is talking to.

  • In reply to Sportsgod:

    it possibly makes sense. He thought Ramirez was going to be scratched for the trade. the Cubs don't like his medicals, want a replacement or a PTBNL for a guarantee so Texas puts him back in to start tonight and prove he is fine??? And Bowden looks like a clown.

  • fb_avatar

    This is getting so old. We are listening to what the media people are calling so called experts. Those idiots sit around making these things up and we fall hook, line and sinker. They are in no way doing their job and yet they get away with it. If somebody wants Garza they will do what it takes to get him. These lame stories they give and they sit around and in there forums are nothing but taking up air time.

  • fb_avatar

    WGNNews: #BREAKING Pearl Jam fans clearing Wrigley Field due to severe weather

    ugh. That blows.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    That's a matter of opinion.
    Anytime I hear Eddie Vedder's constipated, incoherent voice I flee to a safe-zone where attempts at music aren't awful.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    Thunder and lightning must have been bad. I was at the Springsteen concert last fall and it was storming pretty good and the band played on.

  • fb_avatar

    I wouldn't touch any deal unless Jackson is included

    No Olt , No Ramirez !!!! Jackson , Edwards , Alfaro at the least

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Sportsgod:

    I agree.
    We didn't need the infield version of Brett Jackson, anyway.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    He's nothing like Brett Jackson. Olt is still rated as a top prospect, Jackson is not.

    Awful comparison.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubsGo:

    If you actually took a minute to look at the numbers it's actually not that awful a comparison. And Olt is not a top prospect anymore. Were talking about him as a throw-in.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    He made Baseball America's Top 50 midseason ranking.

    I'm sure if they went to 100 Jackson wouldn't have made it. He could have slipped into the Top 150 though if they were being generous.

    YOU'RE talking about him as a throw-in. "We're" implies the front office sees him that way.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubsGo:

    Check out their respective K rates, and tell me it's an awful comparison.

    Plus defense. Ability to take a walk and hit for some power. But a staggering inability to make contact- At the minor league level.
    That's not going to get any better in the bigs.

    If Olt is a throw-in, that's fine.
    But he shouldn't be anywhere near the focal point of this trade.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    Do you realize he was struggling with vision problems earlier this season?

    Look at the K rate before this season.

    I'm not saying to completely ignore this season. I'm saying he had a vision problem that he has come back from. Don't judge the guy on struggling two months. This kind of mindset has people calling for Castro's head.

    Jackson's K percentage is way higher.

    And yeah, I'll tell you again, awful comparison.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubsGo:

    Yeah. Hitters who can't see the ball are an asset in any organization, right?

    You can make all the excuses in the world for Olt.
    He's Jackson plus some power and minus some speed. Similar mechanically long swing that doesn't make contact.
    Hitting 3.00 over a week span means nothing. Darwin Barney did that before the all-star break.

    I'm not saying he'll never amount to anything. But, he's not exactly a huge upgrade to Josh Vitters. And that speaks volumes in itself.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Eric Foster:

    Mike Olt is a huge upgrade over Josh Vitters. He is a huge upgrade over Brett Jackson. You didn't mean to type that right? In fact, ask the Rangers right now if they would trade Olt for Vitters and Jackson. And thank you for the comic relief.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Canter:

    In 2012, he would have been a huge upgrade.
    Unfortunately, according to my sun-dial and farmers almanac it's 2013.
    In 2013 Mike Olt CAN'T SEE THE BALL.

    Neither Vitters or Jackson figure to have much of a future with the Cubs. But they do have the fortunate ability to see things as well as stuff. Good for them, right?

    But, we have to trade for Olt, right? In a position heavy system, void of pitching that won't compete in 2015.
    Yeah. Mike Olt.
    Go home, you're drunk.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    Brett Jackson 65 HR in 1875 AB
    Mike Olt 62 HR in 1140 AB

    Their power isn't comparable.

    Yes, Olt strikes out. Thing is in this day and age everyone does. You can live with a guy striking out if he puts up big power numbers. Jackson doesn't.

    Steve Clevenger is an example of a throw in. Just because Olt doesn't have the highest upside in the trade (in your opinion) doesn't mean he's a throw-in. That's a gross exaggeration for a Top 50 prospect in all of baseball. Top 3 for his position.

  • In reply to GoCubsGo:

    Part of the issue with these rankings is that your preseason rank limits your downside. There probably aren't many front office who have him rated that highly anymore. Even Jim Callis doesn't think he's that great of a prospect anymore and he is one of the head writers at BA.

  • In reply to JasonB:

    I don't see what preseason rankings has to do with any of this. They are separate entities. It's not like the list was complied with "Well he was on the spring training rankings so it gives him a leg up in the midseason rankings." Even if it was done that way, Jackson wasn't ranked in the Top 100 to begin with, and with a lackluster first half he's not even sniffing any Top 100 lists.

    Putting too much weight on preseason rankings when compared to midseason rankings would compromise the integrity of the rankings as a whole. As for what GM's think, that's all speculation. It's not something we can prove. What we can prove is that Olt is still highly rated by a respectable publication. Is Jackson even a Top 30 OF in the minors as of right now? Is he rated on any lists? The "comparison" starts and ends with "they strikeout a lot" Which is far too common in this day and age so it's not much of a comparison.

    Olt's rating did tumble but it wasn't effected too drastically because the people who complied the list don't have the same knee jerk "He sucks!!!" reaction after his vision problem, which has since been corrected.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubsGo:

    There is not much integrity in ratings. They are opinions. Many of the players listed are not even seen by the writers. They are used for mostly comparative purposes.

    Give Olt the credit he is due. It's easy to dismiss him because you (and hundreds others here) want the best of the Rangers' system (as well as any other teams) in exchange for 14 starts from Garza, 13 if he is not moved by Monday. That is a 0.8-0.9 WAR and getting Olt (plus others) in exchange for that limited production would be a great get.

    Stop thinking about unrealistic returns and top ten prospects (if someone mentions Archie Bradley, Lucas Giolito, Trevor Rosenthal or Martin Perez again I may need to be hospitalized) and think about maximizing the return with guys who have high end potential and are buy-low candidates, like Olt.

    If Olt was currently performing at the level he was last year, he would be off the table. Everybody can have a down year (read: Castro, Rizzo, et al) and the guy has been solid since he started taking eye drops.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GoCubsGo:

    That was in reply to Jason B. Sorry GoCubsGo - I am in the camp that thinks Mike Olt would be a good acquisition.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Sportsgod:

    Sardinas seemed like an obvious part of the deal to me because he looked to expendable to Texas. I could have lived with Ramirez, Sardinas and Olt as a throw-in. Sardinas, Ramirez and C.J. Edwards, I think, would have been a big win for the Cubs.

    Jackson seems like he has too much upside for the Rangers to give up.

    But again, it's not like any of these guys are even in Law's Top 50 plus honorable mentions from his latest rankings. So again, how much do they really want Garza?

  • Regarding a "Cubby Occurrence" - A CO would be the Cubs completing a trade and we get all excited about it, only to find out a month or 6 later that he is injured.

    It is a good thing we found out now so we could nix the deal and still get good value.

    No worries.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    any time the cubs have a win of any kind in their grasp, and it turns into smoke before they can close their fist, is a Cubbie Occurance.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    I see your point, but I think the point being made by IrwinFletcher was that if this was a deal the Cubs wanted that the mere fact that there was an issue is the Cubbie Occurrence. That an the fact that if this was the best deal to be had, that now might not get what they wanted for Garza.

  • Yea! We get to do all this over again!

  • fb_avatar

    Something tells me Olt's eye issue threw him out of the conversation, and the Rangers balked at adding someone else to the mix.

  • In reply to Ray A:

    John said it was a Texas Pitcher with bad med. reports.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ray A:

    If Olt was that important to the deal, then I'm glad it fell through. He has about as much chance of panning out as Jackson, which has been discussed at length.

  • fb_avatar

    http://trsullivan.mlblogs.com/2013/07/19/garza-trade-not-happening-tonight/

    Garza to Rangers not happening tonight, per MLB writer.

  • fb_avatar

    Wash has some interesting arms Karns , Ray , Cole ? Not to mention Gioloto If Gioloto is untouchable ?

  • fb_avatar

    Remember when we didn't hear about trades until they were actually completed? Seems like a long time ago, but not really.

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    With today's media environment (social media, bloggers, etc.) and the 24/7 news cycle, there will be a lot more of this focus on reporting of every known fact and rumor.

  • Looks like Alex Rios could be going to the Pirates in exchange for a package including Alen Hanson. Not a bad return at all for Rios.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    If that's the case, Kenny Williams might be an actual magician.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Eric Foster:

    Is Kenny still pulling the strings?

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Just Hanson alone is a steal. Bad deal for the Pirates.

  • fb_avatar

    This trade needs to happen.
    I'm getting really sick of checking my phone every 20 minutes for the last 2 weeks.

    This is like a bad movie I've committed too much time to and feel obligated to finish.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    And then of course it's a bad ending ;)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Haha, I really hope not.
    I'm hoping it's like The Departed, where I'm bored out of my mind until the last 20 minutes. And at the end, I conclude "It was sort of worth it."
    Edwards and Jackson from Texas and I'm happy.

  • Garza trade not happening tonight

    After a long day of discussions and rampant rumors, all indications are the Rangers are not going to acquire Matt Garza on Friday. The two sides may pick it up tomorrow but right now there is nothing happening. It may get done at some point, it may not. But tonight is not the night.

    http://trsullivan.mlblogs.com/2013/07/19/garza-trade-not-happening-tonight/

  • On the good news front, Shark is having a nice rebound start and Lake is 3/4.

  • These players would be a great haul for the cubs truly I don't want Olt he has potential but not worth getting when u can get more high upside guys like
    sardinas
    Buckel
    Alfaro
    Odor
    Edwards

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    I think Derek Johnson would be able to do some great things with CJ Edwards.

  • John, while the picture for this article is perhaps most relevant for the medical issue here, I think it would go just fine in just about any of these trade deadline articles. The pulse and the stress imaging fit very nicely.

    In other news, what are the odds we get an offer that is at least as good as what the Rangers had on the table?

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    Haha! I'm not optimistic about getting a better offer. Just hope it's pretty close.

  • Here's hoping Junior Lake catches fire in the show and never leaves! He has the potential to make our strong upper echelon of position player prospects play way up if he were to establish himself as an everyday big league player.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ben20:

    Sorry, but I have sworn off getting excited about players with poor plate discipline unless they have potential like Baez and Almora. And even in those cases, it's tempered by their approach.

    You have to be really, really good to be a hacker and still be a star.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    Yeah but you don't have to be a star to be an everyday player. I don't think Lake's potential falls much shorter of those two guys either. Bigger arm, more power potential than Almora, plenty of speed, bigger body. If everyone in the Cubs' system were dropped onto an island and they had to "try out" for scouts, combine style, Lake would be one of the first four or five guys to get signed. Obviously approach at the plate and propensity for mental errors don't show up in settings like that. There are hackers in the big leagues that have good careers.

  • fb_avatar

    There were combinations of players in the now-dead Texas deal that I could have lived with. Sardinas, Ramirez and Edwards would have been a nice haul.

    But think about it this way, none of these players (unless I overlooked them) is even rated as highly as Alcantrara in Law's latest Top 50 plus HMs.

    Right now, I'm back to saying make him a QO and take the draft pick. This is ridiculous.

  • Hey everyone. I'll be on the Score at midnight tonight. If you're up tonight, listen in!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Johnny, if it is Ramirez who would the Cubs want to take his place to get this thing done??

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    Luke Jackson? Though it seems the Cubs aren't that high on him, which might make reconciling a deal problematic.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Maybe were giving htem the night to see if they'll reconsider Perez??? John was Russell the 2nd rumored piece going to Texas, if so.....Perez should be the piece regardless

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I can't see a prospect other than Perez that fixes this -- unless they want to go really position player heavy with Odor/Alfaro.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I was thinking the same Mike, except they have a boner for Alfaro and probably won't move him...I doubt they let this die after getting this close

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, maybe were giving them the night to reconsider Perez....John, was James Russell the second Cub rumored to be going to Texas, if so it should have been Perez regardless

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, give me your thoughts on this. If the offer really was Ramirez, Olt and Edwards, to me it would be like the Cubs (let's pretend they were in contention and that Garza could put them over the top) offering Brett Jackson, Alberto Cabrera and Juan Carlos Paniagua.

    Jackson, of course, is Olt, Cabrera is Ramirez and Paniagua is Edwards.

  • Jordan Bernfield now "reporting" on WGN radio how WEIRD it is that so many Cubs "trades" have "fallen through" lately... Calling it now: JB is a damn meatball.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dan Bradley:

    I think he's sharp. I like him on Sports Talk and I think Kap is great, though the show is really dumbed down when it comes to baseball talk. They rarely talk specifics. Way too general.

    But Bernfield is good and this is an obvious topic. I hope it's a coincidence that it has cropped up during the Theo and Jed era, and it probably is.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dan Bradley:

    Well there have been more than one Cubs trade to fall apart in the last year. We didn't deal Garza when we could last year and he got hurt. The first trade of Dempster was nixed after it was leaked. The second trade of Garza today. How often does any other team have a trade not go through once it's leaked it's down to swapping medical reports or leaked as completed? Not very often. And remember, when we signed Theo it took months to actually complete the deal, and the same thing with the Hoyer signing. Not criticizing the front office, but this is a bit of a trend here for whatever reason.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Well stated comment.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm not really disappointed this fell through. I am really unimpressed with the Rangers prospects.

    Olt has been discussed ad nauseum.
    I've read Sardinas is so lacking any power that it could be an issue.
    The pitchers do NOTHING for me.
    Players in the low minors are interesting if they're very highly rated. And these guys are not.

    Alfaro seems interesting but if he's the only interesting guy I'm not impressed (plus I believe John retweeted a tweet yesterday that put backup as his CEILING.

    Really, at this point can we call Toronto and ask for Aaron Sanchez straight up for Garza.

    ONE good SP prospect is all I want at this point. Just ONE.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    When I read that Ramirez was rumored to be the headliner, I went from leaning toward keeping Garza, to willing to deal him to Boston if the Sox would send a package including Owens and Cecchini to "please don't let them trade him to the Rangers". I'm not even remotely interested in Ramirez.

    The Rangers don't really match up well and unless they are willing to up the ante and give up some quantity to give the Cubs a chance of hitting the target with at least one of them, then forget it. Send Sardinas, Alfaro, Odor, Edwards and Payano if you want Garza and Russell. They don't want to part with Profar or Perez, but want to push Olt and Ramirez. I hope Theo and Jed hold firm.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    I meant to add that Profar, Perez, Martin and Olt were the only players that the Rangers had on BBA's top 100 prospect list. None of these guys rumored to have been included in the failed deal made the list, except for Olt. Yet some are upset that the Cubs didn't give Garza away?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    Aaron Sanchez is not being traded.

  • fb_avatar

    sorry for the double post, I didnt think it went thru

  • fb_avatar

    If the Dodgers were willing, I think Lee, Reed and Pederson would be a fair deal for Garza and Schierholtz.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Michael I agree, but Ned the Toupee don't like to pay the prospect price....John, great interview buddy!!

  • Good Job on the Score 670 John!

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Thanks Ghost Dawg!

  • fb_avatar

    Good job on the Score John!

  • Was at Wrigley last night, heard a rumor that the Cubs had an extension in place for Garza this week and it was nixed by Ricketts for money reasons.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Diggs:

    From a Pearl Jam fan?

  • In reply to Michael Canter:

    From someone I trust, but hope it's not true.

  • fb_avatar

    Lets change things up a little by keeping our young talent, develop them and see what happens. I'm all in with Theo and the crew keep up the good work fellas.
    Learn More

Leave a comment