Cubs need to win Garza trade

We interrupt the Starlin Castro bashing for a bit to look at the Matt Garza trade market. In a very timely matter, Garza has gotten as hot as a firecracker (See what I did there).

Things are lining up quite nicely for the Cubs, as they have the biggest and best trade chip on the market. Many outlets are painting a beautiful picture for GM Jed Hoyer regarding his top chip’s rising value.

I had some tempered expectations on what the Cubs could get in return just a few weeks ago. I had heard some teams weren’t convinced of Garza’s health and teams are just being stingier with their top prospects. I have some higher hopes myself of late (regarding return) and even a selfish motive for a big return we can get to later.

Gordon Wittenmyer had 12 teams watching Garza’s last start Wednesday night, and Dale Sveum says Garza sold himself with his latest outing.

“That’s as good as I’ve seen him in two years,” Cubs manager Dale Sveum said. “He had command of his fastball down and away. He didn’t use a whole lot of breaking balls, but he had the extra velocity when he needed it.

“That’s as impressive as you’re gonna get with seven left-handers in the [opposing] lineup.”

It is almost as if Garza was pitching for his trade value itself. Texas and Toronto have headlined the rumored teams thus far in connection to Garza. However, one team in particular I would keep my eye on is Boston. They were mentioned specifically in the afforementioned ESPN report. I’ve been told not to understate the familiarity that Epstein and Hoyer have with both of their former team’s systems including Sand Diego.

I’m certain the Cubs will deal with whatever team gives them the premium package, but there is something to be said about re-aquiring guys you have scouted heavily and drafted.

We are nowhere near the July 31st deadline you say? Well let’s take into effect the Cubs arguably (not much of one) waited too long to deal their best chip last year, bad luck or not. This is a gift of a second chance. They aren’t going to look this gift horse in the mouth too long. Sveum also pointed out the value in acquiring an impact pitcher early and getting more of a return for the prospects you give up.

CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, and Rich Harden were all dealt in early July.

“When you’re dealing with starting pitchers, [early deals] are going to happen a little more than other pieces,” Sveum said. “When you’re giving up prospects and things like that, you want those starting pitchers to pitch for you for more than the two months if you wait till the deadline. If you think you have a chance at the playoffs, you want them for more than eight starts or nine starts or whatever it might be.”

I usually laugh off heavy criticism of this front office’s plan and their trade returns thus far. However, I’m thinking a big win here on this Garza trade can do a lot to quiet that movement. I fully grasp it doesn’t matter at all, but let me just have that anyway, Jed.  Just yesterday a Tribune poll had a majority of Cubs fans lamenting the Cubs didn’t get enough for Scott Feldman, Oy.

The Cubs could really help out the organization with a good deal here, but maybe they can make our jobs easier too?


Leave a comment
  • Here is how I look at trading our guys. I reverse the scenario.

    For example, we are 10 games over and looking to trade FOR Matt Garza. What would you give up for him for 3 months of the season?

    Baez, Rusin and Rosscup?
    Soler, Pierce Johnson and Amaya?
    Soler, Alcantarra and Underwood?

    We don't know opposing minor league systems all that well, so this perspective helps me see what his value might be.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    I think I'd trade Pierce Johnson as the headliner, maybe Alcantara -- but not a top 25-35 prospect for Garza, which Baez and Soler are.

    In other words, I think maybe a top 100 prospect as the top guy but not a top 50 type. But it's hard to say when you're in that position. Maybe some team gives us something a little better than that.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Maybe but I'm not sure. We assume that if we don't trade him we get the additional first round pick, which could very well net a top 100 guy as it is. So I think we get more than a top 100 guy in a trade as the headliner. A top 50 is not out of the question in my mind.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    That is certainly a reason to only take a good offer... not just best available. Keeping him for the rest of the season and getting a comp pick has some real value as well.
    The best offer needs to be weighed against that and I'm sure it will be.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John: What do you consider a win? For me, it would be a couple guys at the lower end of the Top 100.

    I guess the Cubs need to find the team with the most to gain from acquiring Garza. What team is that?

    Also, do you think the Cubs are considering already established major leaguers or only prospects? For example, and this is just off the top of my head, what if the Cubs agreed to a Garza for Jacoby Ellsbury trade contingent on him signing a long-term deal with Chicago?

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    I'd consider that a win as well. I'd love to get a top 50 guy, but that's not realistic unless maybe a bidding war erupts.

    I think the Cubs would absolutely take MLB'ers but they'd have to be cost-controlled and young, early prime or pre-prime age (in other words, 27 or younger). Ellsbury doesn't quite fit that description because he's neither that young nor cost-controlled. He may be someone they consider as a free agent, however. Perhaps on a make-good type of deal as he holds the fort for Almora.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Right. Doesn't make much sense to waste a trade chip on Ellsbury when you might be able to get him "for free."

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    Interesting concept. A lot would have to do on how my team was constructed. Is my team like the Royals, who are still young, or is my Team like the BoSox who may have their competive window closing? If I'm the Royals, I'll give up more. If I'm Boston, I may not want to give up premium prospects because I'll need them soon. Also, who would have a better chance to resign Garza. That may matter.

    I will say though, I would be VERY hesitant to trade my top prospect for a rental.

    (okay, if I have to: Soler, Alcantera and Underwood).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to djriz:

    Wouldn't get up 3 potential impact prospects there for a rental. But who knows. Segura was the Angels #1 prospect.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I wouldn't either. As a matter of fact, I wish we didn't trade Joe Carter for Sutcliffe. I know it was the right thing to do, but........

  • In reply to djriz:

    Still a tough one, could have brought first champ in many years and make Cubs viable least they resigned Sut.

  • In reply to djriz:

    Kick in Mel Hall too! The Cubs way overpaid for Sut (check out his numbers before the trade). It worked out in the end but man the Cubs gave up a lot.

    I never did understand how they couldn't pry one more reliever from Cleveland in that deal. Didn't understand the Hassey part of it either. The Cubs were fine at catcher, especially with Moreland being able to fill in there. The clear weakness of the team was pitching. Needed to get another reliever in that deal (a lefty would have helped!) if you are giving up both Carter and Hall.

  • In reply to bleedblue:

    Getting rid of Hall was a blessing.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    That is a great way to look at it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    What a great post. If I thought Garza was going to make a difference, which I think he can for a team in the thick of the race, I maybe give up the two guys John proposed - Johnson and Alcantrara - and toss in Vogelbach. But that's a lot. And no Top 100 guys in that group. However, a team with an even deeper farm system and established team at the big league level might be willing to give up a little more.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    I really like that way of evaluating value. It helps to be more realistic and helps to feel the pain of the other team's GM as he decides to give up talent that he'd rather not if he didn't need to.

    So many fan trade scenarios are "let's give them all of our junk for their best player!" :)

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    I certainly would not trade Baez or Soler in that situation, and if fans are expecting to receive a Baez/Soler return, they are going to be extremely disappointed.

    I would be ecstatic with a return equal to Alcantara and Underwood, but doubt that we would get it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    We already did this under Hendry and right now finally the Cubs number #1 pitching prospect at the time is now starting for the Rays - Chris Archer. No more depleting the monor league system. You build from within and then sign free agents.

  • Best case senerio is a deal with Boston. Hope it is today!

  • You can tell Garza's pitching for the contract this offseason. Works for me.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    He's flat out dealing right now.

  • Someone correct me if I am wrong. If they do not end up trading him, and they tender him, and he does not sign. I understand they get an extra draft pick next year, a first round pick. If so you would have to think that if they trade him they will get equivalent value of this pick and possibly more. Correct?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Wild Bill:


  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I credit my new found knowledge all to this site. Thanks for replying.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Wild Bill:

    It is a terrific site. What's nice is, you can say something stupid - I think we all make comments we regret for one reason or another - and you don't become a target on the site. And John and others don't respond as if they know they are right and the rest of us are wrong. But mainly, it's just the site with the best and most timely information on the Cubs at all levels.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    Thanks Greg. I think that's one of the better descriptions of our coomment board I've heard.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    Totally agree. Another site that I do not go to much anymore, others would scorn you for just that. I find this site more adult like and with more content and class.

  • In reply to Wild Bill:

    And people stay on topic!!! Cubs baseball.

  • In reply to Wild Bill:

    The first 10 picks are protected, after that you get the first rounder. The Cards got Wacha at like 18 or 19 in 2012. I still say aim high, the contenders need Garza more than we need to trade him. We can still get a nice draft pick, they have to face a fan base if they come up short and don't make moves to help the team.

  • fb_avatar

    Doing a people poll on how good a Cubs trade was at the Tribune site is like asking a flock of birds if they like cheese sticks or watermelon better......The community that posts there is just as terrible and uninformed as the site itself.

    I believe as long as we get a package that surpasses the trade Dempster nixed with the D-backs then I won't complain. At the very least we should be able to get more because Garza is a much better pitcher. I predict it'll be a top-10 guy followed by 1 or 2 top-100 overall guys.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Hope you are right. That's more than I would trade for a Garza rental. But, sometimes it can get like a feeding frenzy if enough desperate teams are in on it bidding the price up.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Cheese sticks and watermelon, hilarious Marcel. What was the DBacks trade for Dempster? I know he declined the ATL Delgado trade.
    Really curious to see what Garza signs for, I heard on 670 a "source" said the FO thinks Garza is a pain in the ass and glad to get rid of him, they didn't elaborate on why, but if that is remotely true I wouldn't expect them to pursue an off season contract with him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I don't see it being a Top 10 guy unless somebody thinks they can resign him.

  • fb_avatar

    I've felt for a while now that Garza was going to bring more than anyone thought, though it was with the caveat that he proved healthy and was pitching well.

    Boston makes more sense to me than any other team.

    1. They can afford to resign him, and they probably would. So the lack of a comp pick might not be as big of an issue. However, if it meant the difference between getting the prospects I wanted and not getting the prospects I wanted, I wouldn't hesitate to off them a prospect back as a conditional PTBNL to make up for the lack of a comp pick should Garza walk.

    2. Boston has tried to acquire Garza twice before: once from the Twins and once from Tampa, and we know they inquired with the Cubs about Garza last season. So we know they like him.

    3. Boston also has other needs the Cubs could provide for. They need bullpen help, Gregg, and they might also some more depth in their OF and the left side of their infield, Schierholtz and Valbuena or Ransom. Major league players with time value like Schierholtz and Valbuena might actually be more valuable to the Red Sox than the comp pick.

    4. It makes sense from the Cubs end as well. You already said it. The Cubs FO drafted those kids. They know them already, and they're already in tune with The Cubs Way. So it won't be a huge change for them. Boston also has something decent of everything the Cubs might want. It's a smorgasbord.

    Toronto and San Diego both went on tears, but they're both starting to fade again. I don't view them as real trade targets for that reason. Also, if Toronto isn't willing to talk about Aaron Sanchez, then there is nothing to talk about. I may find the guy who has had TJS twice interesting, but he has still had TJS twice. Drabek, by himself, isn't going to get Garza from me, and we already have a surplus of Sean Nolin's in our system. Why would we want another?

    I'd certainly love to get a shot at some of Pittsburgh's pitching prospects. Putting Taillon aside, they still have a lot to offer in Heredia, Kingham and Glasnow, and Polanco would be a real nice pick up for the OF. Like Boston, they have more than one need the Cubs could fill. I could see them being very interested in Schierholtz, especially since he still has another year of control. They can't resign Garza. So the lack of a comp pick is more of an issue for them, but again, the Cubs could provide that.

    I don't believe anyone in the Texas FO when they say they're not looking outside for help. We know they like Garza. Like Boston, they've been on him before, and they almost got him from the Cubs last year. Like Boston, they have a good system with a smorgasbord of talent. Also like Boston, they can afford to extend Garza. So the lack of a comp pick shouldn't be nearly as huge a deal for them, and again, if the Cubs offered a prospect in return as a conditional PTBNL, it might help in getting the right deal done.

  • If you're looking for teams with a need, I wouldn't sleep on the two LA teams. I know their records may preclude them from dealing, but stranger things have happened. Wouldn't mind a Joc Pederson as a headliner. Or Zach Lee. Don't think the Angels have a great system, about Mark Trumbo?

  • In reply to djriz:

    Trumbo plays terrible outfield defense and he obviously can't play 1B or DH.

    The Angels just aren't a fit because they really have nothing in their minor leagues.

    But I agree about the Dodgers, they have some really interesting pieces that have emerged and have some starting pitching depth.

  • In reply to djriz:

    Would the Cubs have any interest in Andre Ethier and a top pitching prospect such as Pederson or Lee. Helps the big club now and gets us a prospect.

  • The Cubs have to get his trade "right", because after this, they won't have as many valuable pieces to trade off in the future.

    I guess I'm still on the fence about even trading Garza, as I see him as a valuable piece going forward for this team. However, the time frame for winning in Chicago may be a bit longer than many of think, and Garza may be past his prime at that point.

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    I think you are right. Other than dealing Shark, this is it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    There is always the possibility that they trade him and resign him this winter as a FA, but they have to trade him. Garza is determined to test the free agent waters. He was approached about an extension, and he decided he would risk getting hurt again over the security the Cubs were offering. At that point, trading him became an easy decision.

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    You can never say never, but it would take a whole bunch of stuff to go perfectly for this team to be playoff contenders before 2016. So Garza should go, and I wouldn't mind sending Samardzija for the right package, either.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to djriz:

    No one is untouchable.

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    Except as a free agent, he isn't a piece going forward. If the Cubs want to sign him as a free agent, they can still trade him now and sign him next off season.

  • I think you may be right on Tom with respect to Boston. Love to see Toronto or Texas give up a huge haul for Garza, but that familiarity with the Pads and Sox may be too much for the boys to resist. Is Barnes realistic? Many of us would love to see a young SP prospect headline an upcoming deal. I'm starting to wonder if the Cubs and Red Sox are crafting an even bigger deal; and I for one would love to see Will Middlebrooks as part of a mega-type transaction. Middlebrooks was taken by Boston one round before Rizzo in the 2007 amateur draft. Just like Rizzo in San Diego, Middlebrooks has struggled; and while the Padres went on to acquire Alonso(making Rizzo expendable), the Red Sox are not without other options long-term at 3B. Could the Cubs get both Middlebrooks and a top SP prospect? Love to see it but it may involve adding more to sweeten the deal(Gregg? An OF?) Middlebrooks RH power would be a great complement to Rizzo's from the left side; it would solidify our 3B situation and position us well for future trades when we get closer to competing. Thanks for your efforts on the best Cubs site out there.

  • In reply to Upstate NY Cubs Fan:

    Thanks and I would feel good about dealing with BOS.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Middlebrooks in a deal with Boston,would lessen the value of Baez, NO???
    Baez likely would have to play 3B or 2B as SS is filled with numerous prospects.

  • In reply to TheRiot2:

    You worry about acquiring assets here, not what that would mean to other players in your system. By the time Baez is ready, you can trade Middlebrooks to improve your roster.

  • Sabathia, Lee and Harden were dealt for the following headline prospects: Matt LaPorta (Sabathia; career -1.4 fWAR), Justin Smoak (Lee; career .6 fWAR), and Sean Gallagher (Harden; career .2 fWAR). The best prospect received in any of these deals is Josh Donaldson, who the Cubs sent to Oakland and is having an all-star first half for the A's. The Cubs absolutely MUST do better in dealing Garza.

  • In reply to Eddie:

    Yep. And that is something we've delved into in the past. It's really hard to get value in these types of deals. The Cubs are just trying to build assets and the more they compile, the better odds that a few will pan out -- but I'm really hoping that they get an impact player for Garza. That's their main short term trade chip.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Eddie:

    Good point, but it should also be pointed out that it's rare for a rental to end up being the reason a team makes the playoffs and does well there.

  • I agree with you Tom on the need for a solid return on Garza- if not just to recoup the prospects we gave up to acquire him but to recover some of the value we lost due to his DL time. It's also conceivable that if the Cubs are to obtain a top 100 pitcher in return he might be one with performance or injury concerns. Along with signing Bryant the players we get for Garza might be the most significant part of the season remaining for the Cubs.

  • In reply to Paulson:

    Don't know if you could hope for a return similar to the one we gave up.

  • By reading other teams blogs, 95% of them do not want to give up their top prospects, matter fact, their middle prospects for Garza.....they seem Garza as a pitcher who will break down or a part time rental.........

    the same can be said about other players who were traded in the past years at this time, but other teams still gave up high prospects.............

    Does the Red Sox want the Yankees or Blue Jays to get Garza?.....

    Does the Diamondbacks want to see the Giants, Dodgers or the Rockies to get Garza?......

    Who will want Garza the most when playoff time comes?....who is willing to pay the price to win a World Series?....

    Would be interesting later on in the playoffs to watch Garza beat a team who's GM said he was not worth their prospects......then watch that GM lose his job for not trading for Garza.....

    I feel the Cubs will get two of a teams top five prospects in a Garza trade......the higher the prospects rated overall in the entire league system, the better for us down the road.....

    to me, Garza is headed to Texas or Atlanta.....but I also believe this Garza deal will be expanded with other Cubs players......Gregg, Navarro and maybe a BJax included.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    I think this is where fans go wrong. As Chicago fans, many of us wouldn't trade Soler, for example, if our team was on the cusp and the Cubs were looking to acquire Garza for the stretch run. But in reality, in most situations like this it would probably be a good gamble. Still, would you want to be Theo or Jed and watch Soler go on to stardom?

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    It is extremely difficult for me to imagine the Cubs being in the position of trading for Garza to boost their playoff chances. Presumably, once they are in that position, the minors would be stocked enough that giving up Soler and others would be much easier to live with.

    If by some miracle, this years team, sans Garza, was in contention and they were looking to trade for Garza now, I would not be in favor of giving up any of the top prospects to do so.

  • I like Boston's pitching depth in their farm system. But do they have anything at catcher? That's another spot where we are lacking and would like to see a solid prospect picked up there as well as pitching.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    you mention catchers, Maybe Garza to Atl and include young Mr Galvis in return as part of the package?

  • The thing is there is no one else really out there. Here is a guy who is still young and has AL East exp and a ALCS MVP. They have to cash in.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Yes, they have to cash in. We have to expect a good probability of a bona-fide ML impact player. If not just walk and take the FA compensation.
    The big problem I see is that 2 years ago everyone was talking about 2014 as the year the Cubs could get competitive again- now we're talking 2016. At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand and the FO has either failed or succeeded on the field, not on paper. I like these guys, but this is a major mkt and rebuilding in a major mkt with no legacy high paid contracts, should be a fairly quick process.

  • In reply to Cuyler:

    I disagree with you. When Epstein came here he said we would be bad for two years (2012, 2013) and in 4 to 5 years would be a playoff team. I take a playoff team as being competitive. So Theo was promising being competitive in 2016/2017. It looks like we are right on schedule to what he initially promised.

    Oh and by the way we did have legacy high paid contracts(soriano, zambrano, silva).

  • In reply to John57:

    When Epstein said that he was under the impression that he would be able to spend more on the big club than he later found out to be true.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    So what are you saying? That it is going to be longer than 4 to 5 years to have a consistent playoff team?

    I think the time frame hasn't changed.

  • In reply to Cuyler:

    I do not remember 2014 ever being the year. I certainly never thought so. My Cub fans friends all thought (think) that I was (am) wildly optimistic to believe that 2015 as a year to contend.

    If the plan was just to have a MLB team that contends in a given year, it would be easier and quicker. That is not the goal. The goal is an upgrade of the entire system so the MLB team can contend year in and year out. That is what takes time.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Richard Beckman:

    I believe it's not expecting too much for the Cubs to be vastly better in 2015 than they have been in 2012 and 2013.

  • Wow, John, the notion that we'd only get a top 100, but not top 50 guy, for Garza is surprising and very disappointing. Isn't Garza a top 25 SP in MLB? And if so, he should command at least at top 25 prospect. I'd be hugely disappointed if it's anything less.

    Even if it's a 2 1/2 month "rental" the team that gets would still get a 1st round pick if he signs elsewhere, right? So I can't believe that Garza and a 1st round pick isn't worth a team top prospect, and their 4 or 5th top prospect, at the very least.

  • In reply to Nondorf:

    I agree. It's got to be a top 25 prospect, if not top 10. Think Garcia for Randy Johnson in the Houston/Seattle trade

  • In reply to Cuyler:

    different CBA at work now

  • In reply to Nondorf:

    Some one can correct me, but BOS would not get a 1st round pick if traded to them and if he does not sign with them. I think the trade nullifies BOS from getting a first rounder.

  • In reply to Wild Bill:

    Correct. The team that trades for him would not get a compensation pick.

  • In reply to Nondorf:

    Prepare to be disappointed. Zach Greinke didn't yield a top 25 prospect last year. Heck, the Rays didn't get a top 25 prospect when they traded him to the Cubs.

  • In reply to Nondorf:

    I think a top 50 is possible, but it depends on the market. Right now it looks like it's on the way up and it appears the Cubs are at least trying to get top 50 guys. But I tend to be conservative with these kind of expectations. I was pleasantly surprised with Vizcaino (though he has yet to pan out), so I'm hoping that happens again.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, If the Cubs don't move him, and they get the comp pick, what number pick would it be? Where would that pick fall in the way of prospect charts on average? Example, if a 10th pick FR, normally where does that pick end up being on the prospects charts?

  • In reply to Wild Bill:

    That pick is whatever was assigned to the team that signed him, barring they're in the top 10 picks. At that point you get a comp pick after the first round. (Correct me if I'm wrong, board. I'm still learning too.)

    and those picks vary pretty wildly depending on class depth, first year performance and selection order. Pretty hard to speculate where they'd slot even if you have names, so to do it without it is pretty tough.

  • In reply to Elden14:

    Sorry, barring they're *NOT* in the top 10 picks. Those are protected.

  • In reply to Elden14:

    Okay I got you. Thanks for explaination.

  • One other angle that could improve our return is teams need to win their division these days. You don't want that 1 gm playoff.

  • fb_avatar

    I just want to say. I like what we got for Feldman, but you have to hand it to Duquette. There are rumors this morning that the Orioles and Marlins are talking about Nolasco, and BAL still has the trade chips to go out and get Nolasco, which I think would be good for the Cubs.

    BAL was never likely going to be a destination for Garza, and it would take Nolasco off the board. Also, depending on what the Marlins got for Nolasco, say Rodriguez and Wright, it sets a pretty high floor for Garza.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I think that'd be a nice take for Nolasco. I'm glad the Cubs got Arrieta, though because he's the only expendable arm they have that has front line potential. I like Rodriguez/Wright but they're more #3 ceiling types. Not that that's a bad thing.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    The Orioles getting Nolasco would be IDEAL for the Cubs.
    As you said they were never interested in Garza, and it takes away the only other impact TOR Starter off the market.

    This year is definitely a Seller's Market.

    I'm really hoping for good things. I hope the Thed Hoystein go for a known commodity in return. In other words, I would rather we get back the top pitching prospect in a system & a couple of lesser prospects vs. 3-4 above average prospects.

  • John you know Bostons system. What kind of return would you think would nice?

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    I think if you can land Webster you have to be thrilled at this point. Other guys to look for if it's a good prospect return are Matt Barnes and Henry Owens. Rumor that Cubs tried to land Webster and Owens already which would have me doing cartwheels but Boston said no. Also nice to get up the middle guys like C Blake Swihart and SS Gavin Cecchini. I think it's more realistic that they get one of those top pitchers and then maybe a secondary guy like Workman or maybe Pat Light. But I think the hope is that Webster is the headliner because he'd be ready to contribute next year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed, but I think they'll be hesitant to move Webster.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Agreed. Webster was the headliner when they made there huge salary dump on the Dodgers. They've already given him a taste of big league life.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Question for Tom and John: Would you rather have a deal anchored on one really good prospect (say, a Top 50) and a couple throw-ins or three or four mid-level guys with decent ceilings?

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    I'll take the good prospect.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    I would take the top guy too.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    I was just about to ask this. Great question.

    I too, would prefer to take the impact talent. I think if we had a thin system then, akin to the Astros, you go volume, but with us having great minor league depth already you take the gamble on one star as opposed to several potential contributors.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That is what I was hoping for. One of their top 5 and a fringe guy.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Cecchini is a third baseman.

    I'd love a Henry Owens + Brandon Workman deal. Guy that could be a top of the rotation starter, but a little bit further down the road, paired with a guy who could be a back of the rotation guy next year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    I'm not John, but I've studied Boston's system, and I will take a shot at answering this.

    If Matt Barnes were throwing the ball well, he might be untouchable, but he's not. However, his peripherals are still good: 5.19 ERA vs 3.72 FIP for example. He's likely a victim of some really bad defense behind him. The BABIP and the LOB% are .370 and 67.1%, respectively. Some of that can be chalked up to bad luck and bad defense. Disconcerting are the BB/9, 3.33, and the HR/9 1.20. That's all on him. However, you have to love his 11.04 K/9. That tells me the raw stuff, which they originally saw in him, is still there. Of course, the Red Sox know these numbers as well. Pat Light is having a rough year, like Barnes, but also like Barnes, his peripherals look promising as they suggest some of it is bad defense and bad luck.

    I think you have to get Henry Owens and Blake Swihart. There is no indication that they intend to resign Ellsbury. So I think they'd be real hesitant to move Jackie Bradley.

    I know Brandon Workman doesn't do much for John, but I like the kid. He sits 92-94, and has a cutter, slider, curve and change to go with it. He throws strikes, and he seems to steadily get better each year. His delivery is stiff, which might put him in the bullpen eventually. He could be a #3 starter or a closer.

    Drake Britton has rarely pitched to his stuff. LHP's that sit low to mid 90's and can touch the upper 90's are rare commodities. It's his other pitches that have been the issue. It's questionable if he can stay a starter, but I'd find out before moving him to the bullpen.

    I can't help but wonder if they'll make Middlebrooks available, especially now that Cecchini is in AA.

  • Per MLB Trade Rumors...

    "The Cubs are 'making progress' in trade negotiations surrounding Matt Garza, and they're actively talking with the Rangers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Indians and Dodgers. They may also still be involved in talks with the Orioles as well as other NL West teams."

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    And this too...

    "Olney said he'd be 'shocked' if Garza was still on the Cubs by the All-Star break, but Stark hears that the Cubs may prefer to wait for a team to meet their price, even if it means waiting until the end of July. Stark and Olney agree that Garza will have the highest price tag of any player on the trade market."

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That is music to my ears, however I get nervous waiting for something to go wrong.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    We are talking about the Cubs....when has it ever gone right?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I kind of liked the Aram and D Lee trades.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Also in that same MLB Trade Rumors piece that you got your Garza info from, did you see that the beard, Brian Wilson, is going to be pitching for teams here relatively soon. Any chance the Cubs take a look at bringing him in to help the BP? I mean, he couldn't be any worse then some of the guys we've had in there this year, and if he proves healthy, and effective again he might provide some more trade ammo next year or on the waivers.

  • Longer Garza spends time with the Cubs, that will be one less start for the other team who wants him......

    as for prospects, it might be better to get prospects moving up the ladder in the 100 rankings, than a guy who has been around the top 50 for awhile.. ....i.e. Detroit's Castellano or Texas Olt...........if those two guys were really great as their teams has said, they be like L.A.'s Puig at this time...........

    Orioles are are the Dodgers.....Red Sox really don't want to get burned by they are also out..............Texas and Cleveland have to be in the mix......and don't count out Atlanta......the Braves come out of no where and always make big deals at trading dead line.........I picked the Braves to be in the is all about pitching in the playoffs, and the Braves G.M. knows it.

  • Well, I'd like to thank Tom Loxas for once again stealing my next Brunch column.......Love ya brother.

    I will almost certainly bitch about the Garza trade regardless of who comes back. To me, good pitching is rare gold, and when you can get it, you get it. Wether you're in first, third, last, it's never bad to get good pitching.

    Here's the thing I will look a first. This year's draft, after Bryant, was basically drafting as many college power arms that can get to the majors quickly, most likely in relief. The Feldman trade, while being about Intl money, also got two players, that can possibly contribute immediately. Whoever the A player in a Garza deal is, HAS to be on the opening day roster next year, if not the starting lineup. Wether that's an OF, or a pitcher, don't really care. Well I do care. If it's a pitcher it probably comes with warts....Kyle Drabek for example..... But I think Epstoyer is tired of losing. They're competitive dudes. So at least one major leaguer for next year and maybe I won't gripe.

    Nah....I'll probably gripe.

  • In reply to felzz:

    I agree. I worry. I think young(ish), front-line pitching is the rarest impactful piece in the game right now. Garza has a history of success and he's showing now that he's come back from his injuries, and he's young enough to still contribute heavily a few years from now.

    Whatever we get back better look better in 2015 than Matt Garza would look for us in 2015, or to me this was a loss.

  • In reply to felzz:

    Sorry Felzz but can't tell you how many times Arguello has beaten me to the punch.

  • My preference is to deal Garza early. Obviously, if Theo and Jed had a deal they liked, they could have gone for it.

    However, they sat too long last year. Olt and Perez would look pretty awesome in our lineup right now, even if Olt was struggling, or had to be sent back to Triple A.

    I totally get it. Get the best deal possible. However, I really like Garza, he does not have a long history of injury, but I still consider him China glass.

    If we get a deal better than the comp draft pick, I hope they don't hold out long. I was really holding my breath when Garza faced the A's.

    Great outing, worked out, "maybe" increased his trade value. However, personally, I was on pins and needles the whole time, and might be his next start as well.

  • Garza won’t be traded until Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez officially signs, which will probably be sometime next week.
    If you’re Boston would you trade prospects for Garza when you can sign Gonzalez instead?
    The best scenario would be for the Cubs to sign Gonzalez early next week and trade Garza later in the week.


  • In reply to ucandoit:

    I would guess the Dodgers are going to get Gonzalez so Boston or Cubs shouldn't be counting on that.

    Plus Gonzalez is a rookie and most likely will not out pitch Garza this year (or next for that matter or maybe ever). He is a prospect not a proven MLB player.

  • With this trade and a Gregg trade when they get these prospects into the system they can figure out what they have and if they need to move anyone. I still wouldn't be shocked if this offseason they make a prospect trade. I don't think it will be as big as a Price or Stanton trade but I do think they make a small trade.

  • This Garza trade what it brings back should tell us a lot on what the FO sees the cubs timetable for starting to be competitive.

  • COL doesn't appear to make a ton of sense but , if they stay in the mkt, does a package built around Pomeranz do anything for you guys?

    His star seems to have fallen a bit since Jimenez deal but I don't believe we're dealing with an injury situation there. He's a lefty with good stuff. Given the Coors experience, change-of-scenery argument makes some sense. Darryl Kile-RIP- was the best example of the benefit, that I can remember.

    With regard to TEX, do you guys see a deal getting done that doesnt involve either Olt or Perez?

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    Wouldn't have a problem with that. Pomeranz would proabably be much better off away from Coors since if I remember correctly he is a guy with a good curveball (like Kile). But I would another significant piece coming back as well. They probably wouldn't include Chad Bettis as well, but I would push for him.

  • fb_avatar

    Just tired of getting back injuries, bounce-back candidates and change of scenery guys. T Wood has worked out so far, but we'll see - randy wells had one great season too. But for your prime trade chip, I'd like to see a clean return.

  • "CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, and Rich Harden were all dealt in early July."
    And speaking of Rich Harden, who had a known history of chronic strained shoulder problems when dealt to the Cubs, he was with the Cubs for 2 years, then Texas picked him up on a one year deal. He had shoulder surgery after the 2011 season and never recovered, out of baseball at the age of 30. One of the multiple young players the Cubs traded for him was Josh Donaldson, a late 1st round pick by the Cubs. The A's converted him to a 3rd baseman, and he was in the top five in voting for the All Star game this year.

  • In reply to shalin:

    So it was a trade that worked out for both teams. Harden helped us win a division title and get into the playoffs in spite of a great charge by CC and the Brewers. Donaldson has eventually given value for the A's.

  • I am going to make the same argument again about the O's. They're cheap when it comes to trading. What the Shark was trying to say was that both Scotty Feldman and Steve Clevenger were leaders in the club house. Clevenger is a good hitting and adequate defensive catcher who never got more than a cup of coffee from the Cubs. This situation reminds me of Casey McGehee. Casey was a good hitting 3rd baseman and adequate defensively, but never got a chance because Aramis Ramirez was better. He was let go, the Brewers picked him up, and he was productive for them.

  • In reply to shalin:

    Big difference between releasing McGehee and trading Clevenger. We got value back for Clevenger.

  • In reply to mjvz:

    Two older pitchers with chronic command issues and the one everyone is counting on has had shoulder problems? The value here is questionable and a gamble, but the plane to nowhere is ready if need be.

  • fb_avatar

    I still think we should be looking more at teams with multiple needs that we could fill versus just trying to package Garza by himself, and if it will get us a better deal, I'm all for sending a prospect back to make up for the lack of a comp pick. So here are two deals I have in mind. One with Boston and the other with Pittsburgh.

    First with Boston, Cubs send Garza, Gregg, Valbuena and cash to Boston, and we offer them a conditional PTBNL in case they can't resign Garza to make up for the comp pick. In return, the Cubs get Middlebrooks, Webster, Workman, Owens and Swihart.

    Second with Pittsburgh, Cubs send Garza, Schierholtz, cash and Lake to the Pirates. In return, the Cubs get Heredia, Kingham, Glasnow and Polanco.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Those kind of moves just don't work. Boston is not trading 5 of their top 10 prospects for 2 rentals and a guy in Valbuena who is having his first decent season in his late 20s. Boston is not in a situation where their window is closing and they need to give themselves the best opportunity this year to succeed. While they are not the powerhouse they were a couple of years ago, they are a team built to compete every year given their high payroll ability and strong farm system. They will not gut that system for a short term gain.

    Pittsburgh also cannot send 4 of their top 8 prospects or so to the Cubs for 1/2 a season of Garza, a platoon guy in Schierholtz who is having his first good season in his late 20s, and a future utility guy with a lot of questions with his game. They need prospects to continue to compete. They may trade one or two of those guys for a short term asset, but they will never part with four.

  • In reply to mjvz:

    Oh and on the Pirates deal the Pirates would also need to clear 3 spots on their 40 man roster to make this happen. So in essence they would be giving up 7 guys for 1/2 season of Garza and two question marks.

Leave a comment