Garza to Texas looking likely

Garza to Texas looking likely

When it comes to Matt Garza we are hearing a couple of things.

A deal should come very soon, and all signs point to Texas.

I had heard from some industry people this weekend that Texas would be the odds on favorite to obtain the best pitcher on the market. Everything I've heard since only bolsters that information.

The name that keeps popping up in any potential deal is third base prospect Mike Olt. Olt was rumored to be involved in the deal that fell apart last July, a deal that would have included Garza before his injury derailed it. Olt has struggled this season but apparently the Cubs still have interest. They see him as a buy low value. Do not worry about where Olt will play in relation to the recent signing of draft pick Kris Bryant.

The Cubs are just accumulating assets and there are no guarantees on any prospect. In addition, Bryant has the size that could potentially push him to a corner outfield position.

I had heard that the deal would be Olt and pitching, and the Cubs are thought to prefer at least one MLB ready pitcher included in the deal.

We believe there is another NL team still lurking while Boston also may want the Cubs to wait. However, like I said on Twitter last night, bet on the Rangers.

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Does Olt go right into the starting 3b line up, platoon ( and if so what happens to Ransom ), or to triple A ?

    Ive been hoping we would get Olt since I first heard of the deal falling apart last summer.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Rbirby:

    Olt is hitting .209 at AAA, he's not MLB ready so he would go to Iowa unless the Cubs feel he needs more time at AA to get back on track.

  • Just read a third team could be involved. Presumably the Mets. Texas would net Garza and Byrd.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    The Cubs would have to get a prospect or two from the Mets as well from Texas.

  • Don't be shocked if MLB-ready pitcher is Neftali Feliz...

  • In reply to JoshO:

    Feliz might be interesting.

  • In reply to JoshO:

    Feliz is a closer. Putting him in the rotation is what got him hurt in the first place. Id rather see Martin Perez.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mutant beast:

    And Feliz is still not back yet from Tommy John surgery. Later this month he's expected to start throwing and hopefully start his minor league comeback.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    If its Feliz and hes a closer then you would have him and Vizicano who most see as a closer in 2 of your 3 main deals in 2 years

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JoshO:

    thats NOT GONNA HAPPEN... Nefi is locked under contract

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JoshO:

    your getting Justin Grimm and Mike Olt, bet that

  • Olt and Perez?

  • Olt and Perez wouldn't be enough for Garza.

  • That seems like a haul for 2.5 months of Garza.

  • In reply to Tide23:

    Whether or not a team that might trade for Garza re-signs him is not the Cubs' problem.

  • It is the Cubs problem to the extent that a team expecting only a two month rental isn't going to give as much as a team that thinks they can sign him, and not nearly as much as a team that can sing him before the deal.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    I respectfully disagree.

  • How do you disagree with something that is a fact? He is going to command a huge contract (especially with such a weak free agent class) A team is not giving up their top young guy to get 2.5 months of a #2-#3 starter. They can't even make him a qualifying offer under the new CBA so he would be walking away and they would be empty handed after the season.

  • In reply to Tide23:

    I disagree that if the Cubs trade Garza they will have any concern whether or not the team that acquires him re-signs him or not. That isn't their concern nor will it impact their asking price.

  • yes it clearly is because garza is less valuable to that team, i.e. they would not be willing to give up as much in prospects

  • Are you having a conversation with yourself? :-)

  • In reply to Moonlight:

    Sometimes I talk to myself but I rarely answer.

  • For what its worth i enjoyed it. Good stuff.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Thank you, Tom. You do an excellent job. Maybe if John is away from his computer long enough the Garza situation will come to a head.

  • That's how it works. Murphy's.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Murphy's law or that's where John is?

  • fb_avatar

    Olt and Perez was the deal that was on the table last year for Garza by all accounts and that was for a year and a half of him

  • In reply to Ken Roucka:

    Their value has since gone down.

  • In reply to Ken Roucka:

    Thats also when Olt was a can't miss 23 year old. Now he's a 24 year old having an awful year in AAA.

  • Don't want Grimm. Just saw him pitch in Detorit against the Tigers, and they lit him up early for 7 runs in 2 innings.

    He had nothing, and every hit was scorched by the Tigers against him.

  • These pitchers aren't MLB-Ready, but I like Luke Jackson and CJ Edwards

  • I still want cj Edward involved in the deal he's gunna be a beast 6-2 155 and already can hit 98 and is striking out 11 a inning the last 2 years

  • In reply to dakota cubs fan:

    Wow - 155? Once he fills out some more he'll be really something!

  • In reply to fsufrenzy911:

    Yes exactly why I would love Edward been watching him since last year closely hoping he would be included

  • In reply to dakota cubs fan:

    Wow!! "11 a inning" That's crazy!!

  • In reply to dakota cubs fan:

    Ive heard the name and the numbers. Question with him is is he a SP or an RP, his small frame raises some concerns about durability.

  • Maybe we can sweeten the pot if we decide to throw in Josh Vitter

  • And sardinas along with Edwards would be my perfect deal

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to dakota cubs fan:

    Alcantara looks like a better prospect than Sardinas, IMO.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Yes, even though he is their 2d rated prospect; he plays ss (we have a-plenty), IS a switch hitter though, yet, his ISO is horrible...066 (slg-avg=iso). Anything lower than .100 is basically a singles hitter (1HR, 3triples). He IS fast (24sb) and is playing in high a ball. Meh...stick with PITCHING!.

  • Please not Olt !! He has been terrible this year and is no spring chicken. I know, I know he's had eye problems and supposedly is getting that remedied....but I don't see what value he'd have over PITCHING.
    All these rumors about him are getting Olt...

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I don't mind getting Olt but he shouldn't be the headliner.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    That is really Gar(d)-za take.
    A Vitter pill to swallow.

  • I really hope that there is at least one pitching prospect that is better than Olt. I like Olt, but he should not be the center piece in this trade. He is falling off the deep end this year.

  • I'm not incredibly high on Olt but it seems so weird that he'd go from a super stud prospect to a bum moving from AA to AAA. AA to AAA isn't some huge jump so its surprising to see him fail so spectacularly. Wonder if it is just a vision problem and that they've figured out how to correct it. Olt and Feliz and maybe a young live arm in A ball would be a hall for Garza.

  • Im in the "NO" camp on Olt. Way to many K's for my liking. If he comes this way lets hope he is a piece of the deal and not the center piece.

  • fb_avatar

    How about Olt and Neil Ramirez?

    I don't think they'd include Perez. He's too valuable to them now.

  • Nice work, Tom. Assuming this goes through Cubs Den will be the first place I heard it (surprise, surprise -- NOT).

    Any idea on more details on the pitching? Have they narrowed it down to a couple of guys? Starter or reliever? Are you expecting someone with MLB experience, or just someone who is close to ready?

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    Thanks Matt. We aren't in the breaking news biz just yet but we try and give the info we are starting to get.

  • fb_avatar

    In my opinion, Martin Perez has to be in this deal. He's a potential top of the rotation left-handed starter. I don't mind Olt, but he's not nearly enough for Garza. Wouldn't mind Luke Jackson as part of the deal either.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Ogulnick:

    Yea, if they don't get Martin Perez, then they need to go shopping elsewhere. Yes, I know the Angels thought they were going to sign Zack Grienke and yes he's a better pitcher then Garza, but not soooo much better where we have to take a 3rd rate deal. Brewers got Segura whose going to be a stud, maybe already is for those who have seen him play SS. They also got this SP Hellwig whose not been great, but he's very young, has size and a ++ arm.

    If we deal w Texas, we shouldn't be taking another of their 3B. They got Christian Villanueva last yr and if they already don't think he's ever going to make it, then why take another one of Texas farm hands.

    I am all about the stacking of talent regardless of position, but there is a serious potential logjam ( yes not all of them will make it) but Bryant, potentially either Castro or Baez, Vitters, Villanueva, Alcantra, plus another couple of kids, and you want to throw Olt into that as well even though he can prob play OF too.

    Martin Perez has to be included along w Edwards, and I wouldn't mind Natali Feliz either. Sure he's coming off TJ surgery, but he's already a pretty damn MLB proven closer in the AL. Also, he was always a starter in the minors, so if the Cubs are very patient ( which of course they have the luxury to) with him, he could become a Steal.

    Cubs could even throw in some other parts like one of the "S" brothers, Soriano, Schieholtz, Sweeney ( yes hes banged up) along w even everyone's best friend CASH.


    Just look at our BBF's in our division. They have Shelby Miller ( not as dominant as he started, but already better then any pitcher the Cubs have in the farm) Michael Wacha, and Carlos Martinez which when you look at there ages, your like WTF how are the cards this loaded?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    Greinke is a Cy Young winner.

    Garza is playing well, but they are not the same league of pitcher.
    The Cubs are pushing him like he is, and I hope it works.

    However, we should remember that Segura was not projected to be NEARLY as good as he's been. That deal looks great in retrospect but at the time it didn't look like the Angels had to give up a ton to get Greinke.

    Its odd, really. I'm not sure if that deal gives me dread or hope.

    On one hand, a Cy Young winner didn't fetch much of a return (from the perspective of when the deal happened). But on the other hand the Brewers got way more than the Angels thought they were giving.

    Honestly, that's probably our best case scenario: pick up some guys that disappoint a lot of people, who turn out to be way better than anyone thought.

  • Yu Darvish is an MLB ready pitcher. I hope it's him!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Eddie:

    LOL. Jedstein should have posted that money when they had the chance like a lot of us were dreaming and praying he would. Imagine how good Yu would be pitching in the NL esp at Wrigley when then wind isn't howling out!

    Better make Texas pay, w 3/5 of there opening day rotation on the DL, perhaps 3.5 as they planned on making Feliz a starter and Grimm getting shelled lately. When Yu comes back which will be in less then 2 weeks and if they believe Harrison or Lewis ( which is probable since w Garza, they will only need to bank on 1 vs needed both to come back ) will come back strong along w the way Garza is pitching right now, they have to feel confident come postseason time

  • What about Joey gallo 3b lefty with some big power has over 20 homers this year and he's not as high as Olt then the cubs can get even better pitching

  • If they truly believe Olt is a buy low canidate then he is not the centerpiece. He has to be an add on. I'm hoping for Perez.

  • fb_avatar

    I see that Olt had some tests done in early May to get to the bottom of his vision problem, but I can't find any diagnosis. Any clear resolution come from that whole process?

  • fb_avatar

    They do have the prospects to get it done. Olt and Perez would be nice. Joey Gallo is pretty interesting too if they can't get Perez. I would have to than get 3 players in the top 10 thpugh As I've said before the Cubs could get 2 1st rounders after the season just by offering Garza the 13+ Million dollar qualifier offer. That's a chance for two type A players. So I'd need two type A or a type A and two type B's with one being very close to an A like Gallo who's a power hitting 3B, & only 19. He's got a ton of K's and only a .311 OBP, but 26 homers! He might be worth ringing along as a thrown in 3rd prospect.

  • fb_avatar

    They do have the prospects to get it done. Olt and Perez would be nice. Joey Gallo is pretty interesting too if they can't get Perez. I would have to than get 3 players in the top 10 though As I've said before the Cubs could get 2 1st rounders after the season just by offering Garza the 13+ Million dollar qualifier offer. That's a chance for two type A players. So I'd need two type A or a type A and two type B's with one being very close to an A like Gallo who's a power hitting 3B, & only 19. He's got a ton of K's and only a .311 OBP, but 26 homers! He might be worth ringing along as a thrown in 3rd prospect.

  • In reply to Johnny Hatelak:

    No. The Cubs would only get a compensation pick at the end of the first round, not 2 first rounders, if they give Garza a qualifying offer at the end of the year.

    And I want nothing to do with Joey Gallo. He's in low-A and striking out almost 40% of the time. Imagine how often he'll strike out when he faces better pitching.

  • I looked at a Rangers blog and it doesn't look like the fans think Perez is going anywhere. Like someone else posted, is there any chance that a vitters or Jackson is included? I would prefer pitching myself.

  • Not gallo talk about striking out to much he already has like 125 or something

  • I don't know how reliable the source is but has indicated that Perez is part of the deal.

  • fb_avatar

    I was in the "no" camp for Olt as a headliner even back when he was a stud cant-miss prospect. Now that he's fallen off the deep end i'm not sure I want him at all. At best a secondary piece. Definitely not a headliner.

    Perez has rebounded this year and given them something in that 5 spot. I don't think they will trade him anymore. Same with Leonys Martin. Not really sure anymore what a good deal from them would look like.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    They definitely don't have the top prospects (according to the main resources) that they used to. Not really interested in them as a trade partner either.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I with you Marcel. Trading with Texas doesn't excite me. I just don't think they're willing to trade what we need. And we're talking about more than a rental in Garza to Texas. We're talking a rental and increased change of being in the WS plus an inside track at signing that rental.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Pure speculation, but if the Rangers can work out an extension with Garza (they have the cash), they might be willing to give us Perez as part of a potential package.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    If they can work out a pre-trade extension then the deal starts with Perez and goes from there. The risk of Garza being a rental essentially goes away. I'd expect a package of Perez, Ramirez, and Martin at least. All speculative of course.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    If they can in Garza why would thy even tell the Cubs? Because hey want to pay out more in prospects? That makes no sense.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jivewired:

    Because they would have to be given permission by the Cubs to negotiate with Garza. I can't think of an example where this information has been hidden when a trade went through.

  • Yuck on Olt, unless Texas is selling him REALLY low.

    MLB-ready starter, huh? Justin Grimm, Martin Perez and Neil Ramirez seem to fit that bill. If they don't give up Perez, I'm not sure I'm interested in the other two.

    What about their lower pitching prospects? Luke Jackson and CJ Edwards? Mike Olt, Luke Jackson and CJ Edwards? Feels like too much to give up for 2.5 months of Garza.

  • I wonder if Olt could be flipped to another team for more pitching prospects. Get Olt and 2 A ball pitchers (like Edwards), flip Olt and grab 2 or 3 pitchers from another team.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    We can't be taking A ball pitchers for Garza, players in A ball have a huge failure rate. We want AA/AAA SP's, minimum, preferably guys who have had a sip of MLB experience and are MLB ready. AA is where the men get separated from the boys. I would expect one of the young pitchers on Texas (or any team's) 40 man roster, in addition to other prospects. So for Texas, you're looking at the names already thrown around in this thread a lot: Martin Perez, Neil Ramirez, possibly someone like Justin Grimm or Robbie Ross depending on the rest of the deal, but Perez or Ramirez would make the most sense as the number 1 prospect coming back.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    See I disagree. You aren't going to get a guy that's a top of the rotation starter if he is at the upper echelons of the minor leagues. Sure, you might get a guy that's a #4/#5 starter, but those aren't the guys I want.

    I want guys that have high ceilings. Luke Jackson and CJ Edwards are in low-A, but both seem to have top of the rotation upside. Those are the guys I want, potential impact players, not another guy we can slide into the back of the rotation.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Martin Perez isn't back of the rotation junk. But I understand the interest in projected number 1 starters. But also keep in mind that good A ball pitchers are everywhere. Good AA/AAA pitchers are not, a million guys prove they can't even play at AA/AAA with any success every year.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I agree, but he's also not a top of the rotation guy. Seems like a #3 at best.

    I sort of disagree that there are more good A ball pitchers than good AA/AAA pitchers. There are good pitchers at all levels. Some of the ones that do well at the upper levels don't project to be major leaguers (Chris Rusin). The difference is finding those A ball pitchers whose stuff could be top of the rotation, not the Chris Rusins where they have an 89 MPH fastball carving up A ball.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    And that's why I would love Luke Jackson but I mean cj Edwards gots a lot of room to grow being 6-2 155 and good stuff

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    And that's why I would love Luke Jackson but I mean cj Edwards gots a lot of room to grow being 6-2 155 and good stuff but also see your side of upper level pitcher

  • fb_avatar

    In a dream scenario it'd be nice to find a way to pry Trevor Rosenthal from the Cards. Would like to see what he could do as a starter. Definitely could headline a Garza deal imo.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    As dirty as it makes me feel, I prefer a deal with StL to anyone else. Best farm system in baseball means we get better and make them worse in the future. Carlos Martinez would also be a great headliner.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Agreed. Their system is loaded with pitching. And Garza's effectiveness is likely short-term, due to his age. Honestly, though, I doubt St. Louis would offer him five-year deal in the offseason.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    ESPECIALLY if they don't re-sign Garza in the offseason. To me that's a definite win by the Cubs. If Garza were to re-sign with the Cards though? Ehhhh...

  • From a timing stand point, Wednesday or Thursday seems most likely right? Would they make a trade on the day of the all star game?

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Agreed. MLB would prefer no trades before the All-Star game is over.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    They'll make a deal but probably won't officially announce it on the day of the all-star game. However, that doesn't mean the deal wouldn't be leaked on the day of the all-star game.

  • I would be very happy with a deal including Olt. The defense and power that made him a top35 prospect are still there, despite the fact that he has struggled this year. Also he has shown good discipline, which the Cubs system doesn't have much of. Him and Perez would be great, but I don't see the Rangers including Perez so maybe Olt/Odor/Edwards?

  • Could there be a 3rd team in this deal?

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    Ever since Olt was mentioned so prominently, I've been thinking there could be...

  • fb_avatar

    Simply don't see the attraction for Olt. His last good year was 2011. He's dealing with a weird injury that's hard to diagnose and fix. Did we not learn anything from the Ian Stewart debacle? Why do we constantly need to be taking in injured players and hope they bounce back?

  • In reply to SKMD:

    "Simply don't see the attraction for Olt. His last good year was 2011." You didn't like the line he put up as an age appropriate college draftee at AA in 2012? .288/.398/.579/.977?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Quedub:

    Not to mention 28 HR's in 95 games.

    I don't know why people keep saying he hasn't played well since 11.

    In his last 10 games he's .280/.378/.516

    Small sample size, yes. But his career is not over because a bad first half of his first year in AAA.

    Don't get me wrong, he is struggling this year and I don't think he should be the headliner for this deal, but I think there's plenty left there.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    23 years old, in a hitters league, with more K's than games played? Good numbers but those K's are a warning sign.

    Brett Jackson's numbers were not a whole lot different but the K's came back and got him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleedblue:

    Olt's strikeouts aren't nearly as bad as Jackson's. ever.

    Jackson had three minor league seasons with 100+ Ks, topping out at 158 in only 106 games.

    Olt had 1 100+K season at 101.

    I'm not saying it's NOT a problem at all.

    But Jackson would probably break records if he played a full MLB season.
    Olt would probably have a high K rate, but in line with other well regarded hitters that miss a lot.
    Granderson, Stanton, Ryan Howard, Matt Kemp have all had high K rates and still played well.

    I'm not comparing talent or ceiling to those players, just showing some examples of players who have had very good seasons with a lot of strikeouts.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Um, sorry they are VERY, VERY close!

    In each players first 3 full pro seasons Jackson played 296 games with 320 K's. Olt played in 237 games with 253 k's. The rates are basically the same, Jackson played in a lot more games so his extra K's look worse in comparison. On top of that Jackson was pushed a bit harder, so there is a slight disadvantage to Jackson in the comparison.

    Remember it wasn't until AAA that big problems with Jackson were apperant. The same could be said for Olt, depending on how well they can fix the eye issue.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Quedub:

    You're right, I didn't see his minor league numbers in '12, only his numbers in MLB which made me think vitters/Bjax.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    I agree. So he's struggled a bit this year. Kids struggle at AAA. Sounds like he's had some health issues in addition. I don't love his K rate, but at least he has proven all through the minors that he can walk (including a 12.4% walk rate this year). His BABIP this season is .287, which is considerably lower than last year at AA (.327) and 2011 at A+ (.314). He's also just about ready for the bigs and by what I have read, could easily be moved to the OF if need be. I would be happy to have Olt as part of the deal.

  • Assuming Garza doesn't suffer an injury before the end of the the month, the Cubs should be in no hurry to trade him. The value of the assets in any trade being offered will only go up.

  • Not necessarily. Teams that are bidders now could slump and fall out of the race. Those teams could also then become sellers and the pitchers market could change very quickly.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    You are right. Still, I won't be surprised if this situation continues until closer to the end of this month.

  • As Quedub said not necessarily at all. Things change daily, a contender loses a top player to injury and doesn't want to risk future assets. Cliff Lee comes on the market late, there is no telling what can happen.

    Remember when the Twins could have had the world for Johan Santana? They ended up with trash, and pretty much had to beg for what they got to save face. Things can turn, and nobody on the outside can say the peak of the market until after it is all done. That is why Theo and Jed get paid a lot of money!

  • OK, just curious -- what do you all think Garza is asking for (or at least holding out for on the free agent market)?

    I've remained in the "re-sign Garza" camp, but I understand that the Cubs tried and didn't get anywhere. What would you pay him? What do you think someone else will pay him?

    Ultimately not that relevant, as he'll get traded, but the ultimate contract that he signs next year will make me feel better or worse about whatever deal we end up making.

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    I have a feeling Garza gets a contract of 5 yrs for $85-$90 million this off season.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SouthsideB:

    If that's what hes asking for, then Jedstein is a fool not to give it to him. IMO, he's a much better pitcher then Edwin Jackson. Offer him something like 4 yrs 65-70 million w a 5th yr automatic option based on innings pitched w HUGE performance incentives. See if the I love Chicago and believe in this management and team stuff Garza has been saying.

    He's also a great teammate, and you need guys like him w that fire in the belly to get the team going esp in big games. He basically willed the Rays even when he wasn't pitching during that deep playoff run that ended in a WS loss. Jedstein should remember as Garza beat his redsox in the ALCS.

    Jedstein has been giving the illusion that Garza is asking for Zack Grienke type Dodger money.

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    Rumor has it he's looking for a contract with an AAV similar to Anibal Sanchez's.

  • fb_avatar

    Sanchez' actual salary is $15.8 mil next year and $16.8 mil each of the following 3 years.

  • In reply to Matt Mosconi:

    I'd offer him 3/45 (50 w/ incentives), which I suspect would exceed value based on age. He would be offended by that offer, perhaps rightly so.

    Some team that is in the right window, time-wise for playoff readiness will end up giving him what he wants, which is likely closer to 5/90.

  • I'm curious to hear Kevin's opinion on Olt? That is if he has seen him play lately. If that ends up being the return for Garza, sounds like they need to think about an extension a little more. I'm all for trading him if the return is significant, which i expect will be or they would not trade him.

  • Not much has been mentioned about Theo's friend Billy Beane's A's & the Garza trade...Gray & Sunborne involved?

  • In reply to TobaccopouchinIvy:

    Is this a stated rumor or just a thought of your's?

  • To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get Olt, unless he's a secondary part of the deal... The Cubs have Vitters, Jr Lake, Villanueva... These guys are going to be tested within the next year or 2... Vitters and Lake should get a taste of MLB this year and Villanueva could make it next year... Having Olt only makes the logjam bigger... Then you have Javier Baez as another candidate making it within the next year and a half or 2, not to mention Krist Bryant and Jeimer Candelario within the next 2-3... Besides, Martin Perez, despite his success, doesn't strike me as the impact SP the Cubs should be looking for, but if that's the best arm they can get for Garza, then I understand.

    Personally, I like what the Cards have to offer, especially if they can work out an extension for Garza... I mean, they have guys like Carlos Martinez in the pen wasting away, they also have Joe Kelly and Trevor Rosenthal... All 3 good SP prospects turned into relievers, haven't really gotten a chance to start... At this point I really doubt we get Rosenthal, he's established himself as one of the best young pen arms in the game and could be their future closer... But I think one of Carlos Martinez, Joe Kelly or Michael Wacha could be reachable, depending on whether the Cards can extend Garza or not... Besides, I doubt all of them have a spot in their rotation.

  • In reply to Caps:

    Caps, your thinking on Olt is very "inside the box". Why couldn't he be traded for pitching? Moved to the OF? Lake can certainly play other positions and Vitters is still a question mark. Olt appears to be a better hitter than Villanuva. According to scouts, Bryant can be a very good RFer. If Baez isn't needed to move to 3B, maybe he gets traded for pitching. There are a ton of options Olt or any 3B prospect would bring other than creating a logjam.

    As far as the Cardinals as a trading partner. Yes, yes and yes, assuming they'll give up one of their top prospects...

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Maybe I'm thinking inside the box, but if we were trading Schierholtz, Soriano, DeJesus or any other chip, then I would be OK with it... But Garza is the best trade chip and the best chance the Cubs have at getting a top pitching prospect... We have a farm full of position players and we need impact pitching prospects.

    In the other hand... Thinking outside the box would be to keep stockpiling these position players and eventually start trading them for pitching once we create a logjam... In other words, take over the market for position players, like the Rays did for pitching prospects a couple of years ago.

    But another point that raises a flag for me is the fact that Olt had been experiencing bad vision problems ever since he suffered a concussion and he missed May after eye surgery and even though he seems to be better, he's still not producing the way he's expected to produce, so, you have to wonder if the Rangers are just selling damaged goods, which again, takes me to one of my points... I don't like using the best chip to trade for rebound projects and low value guys.... If anything, I would prefer to package Garza with Schierholtz to increase the return and not count on a bounce back candidate... I wouldn't mind sweetening the pot in order to get a top pitching prospect like Aaron Sanchez, Jameson Taillon, or others around the top 50-75... I mean, the Mets got a deal where they got D'Arnaud and Snydergard for a guy 10 years older than Garza, why should we settled for a bounce back candidate?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    Exactly. We already got a buy low candidate w HUGE upside last off season from the Braves. Let's make the right move as sure miss as possible move w the best pitcher ( w proven playoff experience) on the market right now.

    Mets have made some real good deal as of late, and its going to show in the next 1-2 yrs or so. With there money, they are going to be making a lot of noise for the next decade. Wheeler for Beltran and the raping of the Jays in the Dickey trade were just incredible. Now that's a GM w a vision along w an ace always up his sleeve

  • In reply to Quedub:

    While it would be very nice to get a couple of the Cardinals young pitchers, I don't see them making a deal like that. If they made the trade & fail to win the WS & fail to re-sign Garza, having to face a couple of their former farmhands for the next 7 years would come back to haunt them.

  • In reply to Larry H:

    Larry, while I would love for the Cubs to get two of the Cardinals top pitching prospects, I only said one.

  • I would be careful with Olt Stathead, he did well in lower levels but his K's have always been an issue. It appears now that they are catching up to him in the same kind of way they did to Brett Jackson who put up some very nice numbers in the lower levels. He is roughly a K a game player and to compensate for that he will have to have huge MLB power and walks to compensate. Think Adam Dunn type player. Hit .240 but OBP and SLG make him a solid contributor. To me he is a HUGE risk of having meaningful value.

    Second, and to me this is even a bigger issue is we need top pitching prospects back. Who is going to replace Garza in 2-3 years when we are hopefully a 90+ win team? Or are we still five years out after this deal?

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Who's Stathead?

  • In reply to Quedub:

    I guess the it is StatHead, but his post is above.

  • In reply to bleedblue:


  • In reply to Quedub:

    Posted 1hr 6min ago from when I'm posting this above. There is a post from StatHead

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Got it, thanks.

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Olt posted an age appropriate xRC+ of 168 at AA. He struggled at AAA with the eye issue, was really hot when he returned, was ice cold for a while, and now is kinda luke-warm. At AA in 2012 he had a 24% k rate, which is high but acceptable. He also had a 14.5% walk rate, which is very high. Wil Myers struck out more and walked less in 2012 at AA. Olt hasn't even had a full half-season at AAA, let alone a full season. The package I suggested, Olt/Edwards/Odor, is an absolute haul.

    Also, for what it's worth, Freddie Freeman had eye problems last year, and even once he was back to 100% with his eyes it still took him a month to get his swing back to where it needed to be and to where he trusted his vision.

  • In reply to StatHead:

    Also, forgot to mention this but the Dunn comp is facile. Dunn was an offense-only player and Olt's defense is well-regarded at third base (I think it was sickels who said he has stand-out defense at third). Offensively, their approaches seem similar so I guess you could make a Dunn-who-is-legit-at-third-base comp, which is a pretty valuable player.

  • In reply to StatHead:

    The Dunn wasn't as much a comp as an example of the skill set needed. Granted the defense gives him more room on offense. Still if the contact rate causes him to consistently to have sub .250 avg's he needs to be a 30+ homer guy or MLB pitchers will not fear pitching to him. You could end up with a 240/300/400 guy. That will play, but isn't the type of guy you want for your top trade chip in the rebuilding phase.

  • In reply to StatHead:

    A 24% K rate is acceptable in the MLB, there is no guarantee that a AA K rate will translate to the MLB. If it creeps to 30% it is a big problem and with better pitching it could creep up.

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    No prospect gives you a guarantee, and BB% actually has a stronger correlation between top 100 prospects and MLB success than K% does. You take your best shot. Olt is a good guy to take a shot with, at least in my opinion. There may still be better options.

  • In reply to StatHead:

    Based on r2? Dependent upon level? Why limit to top 100? People are really bad at predictions, would be nice to eliminate that factor altogether.

    Have any publications on the best predictors of MLB success as measured by various levels of minor league statistics? Not criticizing, just curious, its a fun thought exercise.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Hardball times did the research and article, I believe. I'll see if I can find the link. If I remember the article correctly, very low walk rate was correlated more strongly to prospect flameouts than was a high strikeout rate (and the opposite was true, higher BB% was more strongly correlated to becoming an impact player than was a very low k%). The sample size they chose was limited to top 100 players and impact players were defined somewhere around 12 career war. Interesting article, it convinced me to pay more attention to bb% than k% so long as the prospect is under k% of about 28%. That's the gist of what I remember anyway.

  • In reply to StatHead:

    Cool. Would be interesting to read. I'm not a fan of using top 100, because of the subjective and/or causal factors but still better than nothing. In theory, pretty easy to find predictive factors if you use something like average annual WAR to regress against. Would be really interesting to isolate by minor league level regardless of "top xxx".

  • I'm not advocating for acquiring Mike Olt. Just balancing out the condemnation that would follow if the Cubs did get him as a secondary piece from the Rangers.

    by Michael Hurcomb |
    (7/1/13) Rangers infield prospect Mike Olt missed several weeks earlier this season while the team tried to diagnose why he could not produce tears in his right eye, which was beginning to affect his vision. Since Olt began using a special eye drop, the highly touted prospect is back on track for Triple-A Round Rock.

    "It's been night and day since then," he said, per

    After batting .139 with one home run and six RBI in 20 April games, Olt returned to the lineup in June to hit .255 with a .520 slugging percentage, .883 OPS, six doubles, seven home runs and 17 RBI in 27 games.

    "I think I started over," he said. "I started a new season for myself. I mean obviously the numbers are going to be the numbers. Baseball people will understand it's not about your numbers. The last 20 games, I feel definitely more like myself. My power is back. I'm swinging at pitches I was letting go by earlier this season.""


  • In reply to Quedub:

    Yeah, but then in July he's hitting .227 with a .386 slugging... Even though he's hitting .290 in the past 10 games, when you look at his combined numbers in June and July, he's only hitting .247 with 8 hr's in 146 at bats and a whopping 50 K's... And mind you, 8 hr's in 146 at bats is not that bad and the .247 BA shouldn't be a problem if you have a high obp... But these are the numbers posted in the crazy hitting PCL and the 50 K's in 146 at bats or the 88 K's in 230 at bats so far this year is Brett Jackson territory, if he's getting fooled that bad by AAA hitters in the PCL, then he's going to have a real hard time in the majors... I'm just not a fan of using the best trade chip for a guy with such a risk.

  • In reply to Caps:

    Caps, the July numbers are just too small of a sample to mean anything. It's more about how he's looking to a scout's eye now. But there is a distinct difference is performance since coming back after handling the eye-not-tearing issue and his numbers in 2012 and 2011 are what they are. Not perfect, but really good.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Well yeah, a lot depends on what scouts see... But still... 50 K's in 146 at bats since the eye issue is still concerning, whether you're scouting or just looking at his numbers... Still a risk and you're still using your best trade chip for a bounce back candidate that is extremely risky.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    Yup, top prospects shouldn't struggle w one thing in the PCL, and thats hitting the baseball. Even the top top pitching prospects in the minors have ERA's in the 3's. There is a reason for that.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    I feel the same way. I also don't want him as a center piece, but after all we have heard about TheoJed demanding such great return, I can't imagine they would settle for a deal where a struggling Olt is the headliner. He'd be a great second piece to a pitcher headliner.

    Also, it appears Manny Ramirez is teaching him all he needs to know:

    Not many bettor role models than Manny Ramirez right??

  • As a lesser piece I can see Olt in the deal. As THE guy it is a huge mistake. Even if he does work out who is replacing Garza in 2-3 years? Our minors has a few arms but the vast majority are in A+ ball or lower. Attrition is huge at that level, if one of four or five make it to the show that is good. Plus they may just be getting to the show in two to three years.

    If Olt is the headliner, to me at least the FO is conceding the next two years minimum. We just don't have the minor league depth in pitching to compete even two years out.

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Completely agreed. I can't find one post that is wanting Olt to be the headliner in this entire thread.

    Personally, I'd love somebody like Luke Jackson/Martin Perez with Olt and a young relief arm like Ben Rowen. I'd prefer to get two starters if I could. But if that's the best I can do, I think that's pretty good.

  • If there were talk of a 3 team deal and the mets are in it I could see Lake going there as part of that deal. I think the Cubs have to get atleast 1 close to MLB starter in a Garza deal especially if they are getting calls on CV.

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    I would hate to see Lake go in any trade because he is having an excellent year in AAA. I would love to see what he could do come August or September, however, if he is the reason that we get a stud pitching prospect who has ace potential then I say trade him!

  • I'd like to see Garza get traded to Cards for one of their top pitching prospects like Martinez because they are just waisting him in the bullpen when they can get Garza and solidify their rotation and have a great chance of going far in the playoffs

  • fb_avatar

    I just can't get as excited as others here. Olt is NOT the headliner here. He's a throw in type of guy. And believe it or not the Cubs are still in "aquire assests" mode.

    If you look at Garza as a lost cause, which he is because we can already see that he's not crazy enough to give the Cubs a home town discount, then we need to get assets we may be able to flip later. 1/2 a year in AAA does make or break a guy. Look at Vitters, the kid was raking at Iowa last year before he was brought up. Then he got taken out to the wood shed in the show.

    But I digress. If Olt is NOT the headliner for Garza we need more info on who the headliner is before we pass judgement.

    Just my 2 cents....

  • I would normally agree with most everything being said but read the article it even says a third team is involved the mets. Sounds like to me their going after pitching straight out. Now I don't really feel like dropping a bunch of names in regards to guessing who we get but could very well be that we get one near ready mlb pitcher from the rangers with olt going to the mets in return for more pitching maybe several further away prospects or one more near major league ready pitcher. Main point is Theo knows this has to work out well and I've loved pretty much everything he has done so personally color me excited.

  • Just because there are rumors that it is Texas we are dealing with, why is everyone assuming that it is Olt coming back in return? Simply because he was rumored to be included in the deal last year, doesn't mean he would be in this one.

    Whereas I understand the "acquiring assets" line of thinking, it doesn't make sense to overload on a single position. Sure, you could flip Olt in a year or so, but by then he will be pushing 27 and if he doesn't have good numbers, he is dead weight in your system and he would be worthless to you.

    I just don't see the FO including Olt in this deal.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    Well, we are talking about Olt because Olt is mentioned prominently in the lead article.
    Again, I can't see him being a good chip in a proposed deal -- unless we are unloading him for PITCHING to a third team.

  • fb_avatar

    I personally hope that the Red Sox have a change of heart and decide that they need Garza for the playoffs.

    The Cardinals obviously have a great system, but In my opinion, they no longer have the #1 minor league system in the minors. Tey've called up a LOT of guys this year. Most of them are pitchers that have played very well like Miller, Martinez, Wacha, Gast, Maness etc and then there's Matt Adams who they seem to be keeping around while praying the NL adopts the DH.

    The only highly ranked players left are Tavares, who will step in for Beltran and Wong who will probably take over 2B if Freese isn't resigned.

    That leaves them with an intimidating young core for the major league team but not much in blue chip prospects.
    And don't get me wrong, the organization is run well enough I'm sure there's more in the pipeline. They're among the best at developing what they have, but I don't see any fits for us.

    Boston easily has the best minor league talent right now as far as non-rebuilding teams. (and hell, they might still be in the top two or three if you did include rebuilding teams). I really really hope Boston takes the lead here. They can easily resign Garza, so the rental tag wouldn't mean as much.


    That said, whatever deal is made, I'm just going to accept it and be ok with it.
    The Garza situation is kind of an tough one. He isn't good enough to get the kind of return that RA Dickey or Greinke got, but he's good enough that it can't just be the kind of deal where teams are trading prospects that they can replace easily.
    And the new CBA has teams more and more reluctant to trade their own prospects, so whatever deal they pull the trigger on, I'll assume that was the absolute best that any team was willing to give up and trust that it'll work out as well as the previous trades.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    I agree giffmo, the only think I would add is the Cubs have leverage here. They have the one guy that can start game 7 of a playoff, or WS game and win the game for his team.

    The Cubs can go to their fans after July 31st and say we tried to get a fair deal but there was nothing available. We will offer arbitration, and try to resign him. The FO will not get any blowback with that story.

    The contenders don't get a difference maker and miss the playoffs their fans will not be happy at all.

    That is enough leverage to not buckle, get a great deal or don't trade.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleedblue:

    Well I really don't think the FO would make a bad trade if no one was offering anything.

    So IF a deal is made, I'm just trusting Theo that the deal was the best possible.

  • I think I have to trust FO on Olt. I would've been thrilled last year with the kid so Im not going to completely change my stance this year.

  • Several comments have stated that the Cubs can't expect that much for a two and a half month rental, but I haven't seen one mentioning that the Cubs could give the trading partner a certain time frame to negotiate an extension prior to signing off on a deal. That would certainly increase his value. Besides that, it goes without saying that the team acquiring Garza would have the inside track on signing him before he officially hits the FA market anyways. And of course, Garza would give the trade partner a major boost in their chances of winning the WS. I'm still not big on this trade Garza thing, but I don't see the FO not getting a haul back for him.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    Right. Similar to the Jays Dickey deal which I think was contingent on them working an extension.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to WSorBust:

    I may be wrong here, but I don;t think the MLB has many sign-and-trades.

    And clearly whatever team trades for him gets the inside track on an extension, but some teams know ahead of time they can't afford that.

    Which is probably the reason that the teams most involved in these talks are the ones that can afford to sign him. The Rangers and Red Sox are known to have money to spend, and while the Cards aren't necessarily big spenders they did offer Pujols a ton of money, and that's a ton of money they didn't end up spending that can go elsewhere.

  • Well in the other hand... If we get Neftali Feliz and Olt... Olt would be the bounce back candidate, but Feliz could be our closer as soon as next year... Which is an area we truly need to fill.

  • I don't have a problem with getting Olt, because right now we don't have any high ceiling 3B in the organization (Bryant 2-3yrs maybe, Baez still a SS, Villanueva 1-2yrs away, Vitters (imo) just a backup).

    With Olt I think we can expect him to man the hot corner next year and if it looks like any of our prospects are any closer then we can trade him for pitching depth.

    That said it is an asset acquiring move and isn't based specifically on need. Could be genius, but not a sexy move by any means.

  • So I wonder outside the Indians who have been mentioned I wonder what other teams have been given the go ahead to try and work out an extension

  • fb_avatar

    Teams can't allow other teams to negotiate extensions with opposing players unless a trade agreement has been struck pending the extension. So if the Cubs reached an agreement with Team A, for example, Team A would have 24-48 hours to reach an agreement on an extension. The Cubs can't let every team interested in Garza just start talking extension with his agent, MLB doesn't allow that. There has to be a trade agreed to before that can happen.

  • Cuban defector Miguel Gonzalez has been officially cleared by the US and is now free to sign with a MLB club. Signing doesn't count against IFA as he is 26 years old.

    Mid 90's FB, curbe and a fork ball. Expected to command between $40-60 Million.

    My guess is FO goes hard after this guy as he could be in the rotation by 2014 or 2015 at the latest.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    I would love for the Cubs to get this kid, but with the bidding estimated to be at 10+ per year/5-6 years that's pretty steep.

    Also the Dodgers are completely nuts and chances are they offer him 15 Mill/per year.

    BUT If anybody has a chance besides the Dodgers to get Gonzalez it's Theo & Company.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Why throw that kind of money at a lottery ticket cuban pitcher? Yes the hitters have come over and been successful, but when was the last great Cuban starting pitching defector? El Duque? Livian? Contreras? Chapman is legit, but will he ever be a starter? I say save that money and throw that cash onto whatever deal they been offering Garza to stay.

  • That talk of Cubs extending Garza might have been them finding out what he wants so they can inform teams that may be interested in trading for him what his price is

  • fb_avatar

    I wish most of you would play in my fantasy league. The way you overvalue Garza, I'd win 2,000 every year.

  • In reply to Jivewired:

    Did the Mets overvalue Carlos Beltran?

    Most observers would say ABSOLUTELY! They also found someone willing to pay the price, and got an absolutely elite talent.

    Nothing wrong shooting for the moon, nothing wrong with it all. Especially with the strong possibility of getting a second first rounder and the extra signing money that goes along with it!

  • No to Olt.

    Do Not Want!

    These are not the droids you're looking for...move along.

  • Just to walk everybody back from the cliff a little bit if we do get Mike Olt as part of the Garza trade...

    First of all I trust Thed Stoyer to make the right decision based on the info they have. It's possible the Cubs have a deal for Valbuena working as well, so we might need a 3rd basemen for at least another year or two. As much as I like Junior Lake, he is NOT a MLB 3rd basemen. Look at his 3rd base fielding numbers in the minors.

    Also Olt has been a top prospect, has a lot of talent, and has been slumping for about half a year. He is a career .280 hitter in the minors with good power (lots of doubles too), and solid defense at 3rd.

    He had a problem with his right eye this year in which he wasn't getting the normal tear production that keeps the eye moist. He went to the eye specialist and now he just puts in drops before each game. It helped him tremendously, and when he first came back he said that he felt better than he EVER had before.

    However he has some swing and miss to his game, that's not a new thing, but here is what's new...

    After he came back he eventually went into a slump (1 for 22) and hat's when Manny Ramirez noticed a flaw in Olt's swing: He was dropping his hands. Since he fixed it on July 7th he is batting .355 and OBP of over .400.

    Here is the quote:

    {Manny Ramirez helped notice a flaw in 3B Mike Olt's swing at Triple-A Round Rock in the last few days. Olt has since fixed his mechanics and went 2-for-3 with two hard hit balls Sunday, July 7. Before that, Olt was in a 1-for-22 slump. "He saw that I was late and dropping my hands," said Olt, who made his debut with the Rangers last season playing in 16 games. "We went to the cages and I worked with him."}

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    All of this is fine, but a few things. 1st, Olt has had one great year, as a 23/24 year old in AA. Secondly, 2 for 3 since talking to Manny is a REALLY small sample size. Lastly, I really don't see the FO taking less for a player because they need someone for a position. A short term need at 3rd shouldn't be the reason we get Olt.

    If the FO thinks Olt has value, fine, get him. Most of us just happen to think we want a better headliner. That's all.

  • In reply to djriz:

    No, It's been since July 7th. Obviously you didn't read what I said.

    The quote I used was just for reference to the mechanics issue, it was a day after he fixed it. He played in 8 games since then in which he batted .355. still a small sample size, but obviously I wasn't using 2 for 3, I mean c'mon.

    As for him "only having one good year in AA when he was 23....that's just wrong, check his stats.

    I think he can still be a quality 3rd basemen. if he can give you .270 with 25-30 hrs a year with solid defense at 3rd, I would be ecstatic and so would pretty much any FO.

    Then we can always package him if Bryant or Baez HAS to go to 3rd, at which time we can get a haul. In any case, I have faith that Theo & company know better than you do.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    I am sure Theo and Jed know more than I do. And, like I said, if they see something they like, I'm fine with Olt. I just think the current feeling on Olt is not what is was.
    Yes, I miss read your post. For that I apologize, but I will stand by one thing. The FO will NOT take less for Garza to fill a position. They will go for the best player available.

  • In reply to djriz:

    I agree with that 100%

  • fb_avatar

    2012 Jurickson Profar AA (480 AB): .281/.368/.452/.820 14 HR 62 RBI 16 SB

    2013 Arismendy Alcantara AA (what he's on pace for after 480 AB): .280/.354/.475/.829 18 HR 64 RBI 31 SB

    Same position (2B/SS); granted Profar was 2 years younger, but Alcantara's had the better season. Common opinion is that Alcantara should now be able to crack top 100 lists, but I don't see why he's not a top-50 prospect at least.

  • In reply to Jason Pellettiere:

    Defense is the difference between those two.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StatHead:

    The thing is though, while he may not be able to play short in the bigs, Alcantara's a good defender at 2nd. I'm not arguing he's the superior prospect, but in terms of production and ceiling, he's not *that* far off.

  • In reply to Jason Pellettiere:

    1) "on ace" means nothing. Baseball is a game of streaks. His second half numbers may well be better than his first numbers, but they could be way down as well. Fact is Profar accomplished, you are merely projecting Alcantara to do something.
    2) 2 years is a HUGE difference in terms of projection. Alcantara is doing a great job and is young for being in AA. But Profar was extremely young for the league. He also played superior defense and projects as a true SS, where as Alcantara has already been moved off the position and is playing 2B.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    Alcantara's been remarkably consistent all year with his approach. He's had his slumps, but we're not talking about what he's on pace for after 100 AB's. He's had 339.

    Even if going by what he's on pace for gives you pause, look at what he's already accomplished: in 100 less ABs, same amount of HR's, same average, same OPS, more SBs, better wrc+ (139 to 127). Alcantara's having a better offensive year than Profar had last year.

    I think their offensive upside is similar. If they both end up at second in the big leagues (for different reasons obviously, Alcantara because he can't play short, Profar because he's blocked by Andrus) is there that much of a difference between a very good defender and a gold glove-caliber defender. There is a difference, but I don't think 100-spots-on-prospect-lists-worth of a difference.

    Again, I'm not trying to argue Alcantara's the better prospect. He's not. But when you consider all the things you look for when ranking prospects -- age vs. level, approach, tools, floor, ceiling, etc. -- I don't see why Alcantara can't be in the 30-50 range league-wide and near the Cubs big 4.

  • fb_avatar

    I don't quite understand all the anti-Olt sentiment out there. Yes, he's having an awful season, but that also makes him a buy low type of candidate. I highly doubt he would be the headliner in any deal involving Garza. That would more likely be Martin Perez.

    BTW, the Cubs have given the Rangers permission to try and work out an extension with Garza, and if successful, that changes the entire equation in terms of what the Cubs can expect back. In addition, there are rumors that the Rangers may be interested in acquiring more than just Garza from the Cubs. I'm guessing that would be Schierholtz.

    Garza by himself and without an extension is probably worth Perez and Olt. If you throw in Schierholtz, who has a year of control, you should get a little bit more.

    Garza by himself and with an extension is probably worth Perez, Olt, Jackson and Edwards. Again, throwing in Schierholtz probably gets you another piece.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Garza in any package that brings back Olt isn't buying low.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I understand they might be interested in Navarro also as an extra piece.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Michael, where did you read or hear that the Cubs gave the Rangers permission to try to work out an extension with Garza? How about the source for Texas also being interested in getting more from the Cubs besides Garza?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to WSorBust:

    I didn't read it. I heard it. I would've chimed in on this thread a long time ago, but there was a bit of a family emergency today. However, I have no reason to doubt the information. I also checked it with others who were in a position to know what is what, and I certainly have no reason to doubt those people. Besides, It's only logical the Cubs would do so, and considering how the Rangers may be adversely affected by suspensions, it's also logical they might find other Cubs assets attractive.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    2 years is a pretty darn big deal when you talking about talent levels and projections. A two year difference is reflective of a serious gap in talent, meaning in 8 years, he will certainly be the better player, not just '2 years behind.' Put it this way, Arod and Griffey at their ages had great minor league seasons for their age, but you can find guys 2 years older that had similar seasons that sucked real bad. So you cant just say 'granted' its only two years diff. . . That being said, AA is still young but you cant compare him based on his AA stats to Profar.

  • What about the Cubs trying to resign Garza in the offseason? I know it probably wont happen and he may want to play out in cali because he grew up there, but he seems to love Chicago. Plus, he has a family that is situated here.

  • Would not surprise me to see Vitters go to Texas in the deal.

  • In reply to The Show:

    It would surprise me, put it this way, if the rebuilding Cubs are willing to throw him in a deal, that should tell you all you need to know about him and his future

  • fb_avatar

    Chris Davis' slugging percentage this year is .717 - he has 37 hr's at the all star break, an MLB record.

    Davis' slg percentage last year? .501, and he hit 33 hr's last year with a .501 slg percentage.

    Davis' slg percentage two years ago? .402, one of several years struggling. he did have a .549 slg percentage his rookie year in 2008, but he struggled since then until last year. His career slg percentage before this season was just under .500

    Now it's .717


    The last time someone had a slg percentage over .700?

    2004, Barry Bonds

    and Bonds in 2003 2002 2001 (the start of baseball's HGH era, when Bonds led the way away from steroids to undetectable cutting-edge HGH)

    before that, Larry Walker, Mark Mcgwire, and Jeff Bagwell, 5 out of 6 years from 94-99 (baseball's steroid era)

    and before that?

    Ted Williams, 1957

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Your point being?

  • fb_avatar

    Anybody notice Jeff Baker is back from the dead with Texas? lol

    Putting up nice numbers in a very limited role.

    Geo is hitting .185, so no wonder they might have interest in Navarro. Isn't Geo making $3 mil this year?

  • fb_avatar

    I keep wondering what Scott Boros would get for Garza if he were GM....

    I now think its possible to get Profar. I think Barney would have to be included but we'd have a new lead off second baseman.

  • In reply to Dale Miller:

    Two interesting thoughts.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dale Miller:

    LOL on Scott Boras, but I wouldn't mind him being my negotiator for my GM if I was an Owner.

    If Profar was available for Garza, even I don't think Jedstein would hold out for something better. Also, it would clear up the "what to do w Starlin Castro" They seem to not see him adapting to there style of baseball ( which I disagree w, I say if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it as Castro was a 200+ hit machine, just get additional players that play "cubs way" and surround the 200 hit fella)

    They could then send Castro somewhere during the offseason, and start training Baez to play another position this offseason.

    What would you rate the difference in defense at SS between Profar and Castro? I think I only seen Profar play SS 3x in the ML's, but I was impressed.

  • fb_avatar

    Mike Olt strikes out a lot, has little speed, and will be 25 next month. He's almost become an infield version of Brett Jackson without all the tools Jackson brings to the table. If he's the main piece in the deal, it will be a huge bummer for me.

  • Maybe with buchholz not ready to come back Boston goes all in for Garza. I love there young talent and with Theo's knowledge of the system could be best case scenario for the Cubs.

  • It really pains me to see this morning in the Trib , the article by David Haugh , saying how the Cubs are foolish to trade Garza and they shoud re-sign him. Why does Chicago, a great sports city, stuck with so many lame sport writers? With one or maybe two exceptions, not one of the writers here have any clue what rebuilding is. The Cubs are trying to win for 2015 and start getting respectable by next year, why overspend for a pitcher who is injury prone and will be at least 2 years older when the Cubs want to be contending? Sigh....why are we stuck with so many clueless writers here??

  • In reply to Steve Flores:

    I don't think the Garza issue is very cut and dried at all. There are good arguments for trading or signing. If the prospects sent back aren't very impressive, then the argument for signing becomes stronger. Especially as the Cubs have EJax 13mm for 4 years. Labeling Garza as injury prone isn't fair or accurate.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Garza has missed more than 25% of his potential starts as a Cub.

  • That is correct, which unfortunately tints the lenses for Cub fans. If you widen your vision to his entire career, you may conclude that the last two injuries were (maybe correlated) anomalies and his next employer will get a very favorable reversion to the mean.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    That is correct, or since players with injury histories tend not to become healthier with the aging process, one could conclude that, back luck or not, Garza's health might become questionable again.

  • If he had an "injury history", then there would be valid reason for concern. But Garza made 30-32 starts in each of the three years prior to being traded to the Cubs. And his first year as a Cub, Garza made 31 starts. He's had two injuries, neither of which required surgery, that have cost him some time on the DL this year and last. He he sure looks healthy WHIP and ERA of his entire career.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    He's been on the DL, for varying lengths, in each of his 3 seasons in a Cub uniform. That's his Cub injury history. I believe teams thinking about trading for him are taking that into consideration.

  • In reply to Steve Flores:

    Garza is younger than Jackson and they gave EJ $52M. We don't know what Garza's asking price is, but I'd rather "overpay" him than Jackson. Why think like a small-market team? If the Cubs are going to go all out to win in 2015-16 as many predict, all that young talent coming up will be earning around league minimum salaries. Surely the Cubs could afford to overpay for a couple TOR veterans. What happens if they deal Garza for prospects, who never develop and contribute as hoped? What happens if Samardzija gets hurt or they trade him too? Who will head up the rotation in 2015-16?

  • Olt's vision problem was his rt eye wouldnt produce any tears , his eye was so dry he basically couldnt see and regualr drops didnt work, he was hitting .150 before the diagnosis, now he has special drops that are working and his avg is up .60 points and the power is coming back and the k's are getting back in line with his regular #s , Him and an arm would be a fabulous haul for a rental .

  • I'm not crazy at all about Olt. Not crazy about Perez either even though he's doing a nice job this year. I'm just not convinced that Olt will be an impact player in the show. My gut's telling me he's going to end up more towards the Ty Wigginton end of the spectrum versus the David Wright/Ryan Zimmerman end of the spectrum. However, if he ends up becoming a Cub I will certainly be rooting for the Mike Shcmidt end of the spectrum! I don't see the urgency. Why not take it right down to the deadline and see if anyone will cough up a Taillon or another really high end guy. If not, settle for guys like Olt.

Leave a comment