The latest we're hearing on Matt Garza: Jays fading; Giants interest growing; Nats still in the picture

Trade season has already started in part because of international free agency.  We’ll be ramping up our coverage here with a focus on just trying to give you the best content  and the most original information out there.  In fact, we’re working to find out even more information as I write this.

The Cubs have traded their second best trading chip in Scott Feldman. The Marlins dealt Ricky Nolasco away for salary relief.  That leaves Matt Garza as the most desirable pitcher left on the market.  And we keep hearing the Cubs asking price is pretty high and they have no intention of giving in.

The Jays  seem to be dropping out as their playoff chances fade but in their wake, the Giants seem to be intensifying their interest.  On a separate but possibly related note, I’ve heard that Kyle Crick had a contingent of scouts at his last start.  Crick is the Giants best prospect and a potential front line starter.  It would take a major player to pry him loose and with the Giants looking for pitching, there may be no bigger name out there for them right now than Garza.

Crick 20, has an excellent fastball, rated as a 70 by Baseball America for it’s velo (sits 93-95 for entire game, peaks at 99) and pitches with excellent downward plane, a curveball that he picked up recently as is quickly becoming a plus pitch, and a present solid average change-up.  He also creates a bit of deception in his delivery, which helps play his fastball up even more.  The problem with Crick is his command which projects to be average and presently is well below that.  He walked 5.42 batters per 9 IP last year and since returning this year he hasn’t improved much, walking 5.11 — though he does an incredible job of missing bats (14.59 Ks/9 IP in his 6 starts this year at the advanced A ball level).

We are hearing Crick is a longshot, however.

It was thought that the Giants originally preferred Feldman because of the lower asking price and because they simply felt he was a good fit there, but with Feldman gone, the Giants options are thinning out.  Garza is expected to be much more expensive but whether the Cubs can pry Crick lose remains to be seen.  The Giants were criticized for dealing Zack Wheeler in a deadline deal for a rental a couple of years ago (for Carlos Beltran), so I’m not sure they’re eager to repeat that if they can help it.

The problem with dealing with the Giants is that they don’t have much else that the Cubs would really want.  They have a couple of nice position players in SS Joe Panik and OF Gary Brown, but neither are considered impact guys at this point.  Panik will probably move to 2B and he has struggled a bit at AA this year (.252/.339/.348).  Gary Brown has struggled at AAA (.243/.303/.422) and may not have the bat to carry a corner OF position.

The Cubs would probably also show interest in a more MLB ready arm like Mike Kickham.  It’s a bonus that he’s a lefty and can throw a low 90s 2 seamer with good movement, some good tail and sink..  He has a ghastly 12.15 ERA in a brief audition with the Giants.  But a closer look reveals some excellent strikeout numbers 10.13/9 IP with solid control (3.38 walks/9 IP).   He’s also had a .435 BABIP against him which is unsustainable, as is his 47.8% strand rate and 35.7% HR/FB rate.  When you take that into account, you get an xFIP of 3.43.  He seems to me exactly the kind of guy the Cubs would try to pry lose with the expectation that he’ll regress back to the mean with many of those peripherals.  Kickham projects as a #3 starter.  Another guy I like is Clayton Blackburn who doesn’t have much projection left but could also be a #3 type because of his combination of solid stuff (87-92 mph, curve, slider, and change) and good command.

I’ve also heard that the Cubs are scouting the Nationals more closely, perhaps thinking there is a deal to be made there.  I don’t think they can pry Lucas Giolito or Anthony Rendon loose, but there are still interesting prospects like A.J. Cole, who is still at Class A and has good stuff, but has struggled somewhat in terms of results, 5-3 with a 4.58 ERA, but 22 walks and 98 strikeouts in 88.1 innings make him awfully interesting, as does the movement he has on all of his pitches, a 92-97 mph fastball, inconsistent slider, and a change with some good fade.  Some scouts see some easily fixable mechanical problems in Cole.   Nate Karns may be another target because of his MLB readiness and power arm (averaging 93.4 mph on his heavy FB and hard curve with sharp downward bite).  He projects as a #3 starter and like Kickham on the Giants, has struggled to be of any help in a pennant race — but peripherals (4.64 xFIP) suggesting that there are better days ahead.  The Cubs can afford more patience with him than the Nats can.

We also know that the Rangers have been a steady presence for Garza’s starts.  We know that they’ve shown interest in LHP Martin Perez in the past, but Perez has been pitching well (albeit unsustainably well) for the Rangers during their stretch run.

Some internet reports have the Cubs talking with the Indians and the obvious target there is Trevor Bauer — again because of the combination of front line stuff and MLB readiness.

There are, of course, many names out there that could be fits and we just named a few that we think could headline a deal, but you can be sure the Cubs will scour both farm systems for some secondary players that may be undervalued.

As usual, we’ll be following this closely and we’ll update if we hear anything new.

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation


Leave a comment
  • excellent, thanks for the update
    Is Giolito healthy yet? I would love to get him but I assume they wouldn't want to include him. I am not sure I find Cole all that attractive unless part of a broader package

  • In reply to Tide23:

    Thanks and you're welcome. I think, all things being equal, the Cubs prefer a guy who will be ready to contribute next year, so I can see Karns being part of the equation.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tide23:

    Cole could headline a Garza deal if a few upside arms came along with him. Ceiling is a #2 starter at the moment.

    It's hard to gauge the value of Lucas Giolito because despite having legit #1 potential he's yet to really do anything in over a year. Considering there were big injury concerns when he was drafted and he's done nothing but prove those concerns correct it makes the situation interesting. Right now he has 0 value.

    That makes me believe that if the Cubs kicked in another useful piece that maybe we could get Cole AND Giolito. Garza himself should be able to net Cole and Karns by himself.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    I would love Giolito and Cole for Garza and a spare part.

    If we trade Garza I would want to get a Giolito or a Trevor Bauer type player. If we can't get some upside from the trade, then I would prefer to sign Garza to a team friendly 4 or 5 year contract. A trade that gives us a couple # 3 or #4 ceiling level SP prospects doesn't do much for me. Theo proves every year he can pick up a pitcher or two of that level to flip. Why trade for one?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John57:

    Do we really want Trevor Bauer on this team. Haven't we seen enough head cases to last not only ours but our children's children lifetime....

    I'll pass. Just my 2 cents worth.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Depends on how accurate those stories are. Gibson didn't like him. He didn't like Justin Upton. But he liked Tony Campana. So who knows?

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I'm sure old man Ricketts would welcome Bauer to the club.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    When you say Giolito has ZERO value what are you basing that on? I sure would like to know how a prospect that the Nationals are near 100% NOT wanting to deal has zero value. That aside, Giolito will not be coming to the Cubs for a rental player. Matt Purke would be the more obvious choice, maybe with Cole, though that would be a pretty big haul for 2.5 months of Garza.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jivewired:

    What I mean is he is an extreme high-risk project right now and is about as far down on the farm as you can be. No team is going to give up established talent for a deal headlined by him because he is such a big question mark. The Nats probably won't trade him for that same reason. Too big a question to trade, too big to trade for.

    So in retrospect, if no team will take him without a more sure-thing like A.J. Cole added to mitigate the risk and the Nats won't trade him if it means adding in more pieces then essentially he has no trade value.

    Make sense? I know he has value, but right now he has little to no trade value. Ken Rosenthal mentioned this himself a while back. He has about as much trade value as Duane Underwood or Paul Blackburn if that puts it in perspective for you.

  • The long they wait the better chance buyers become sellers and
    more pitchers hit the market. Please take the best offer ASAP

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    But what if the best offer isn't very good right now?

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Agreed w/ your sentiment John. If the Cubs are more committed to getting something / anything for Garza, then absent greater panic amongst potential buyers, I suspect we'll likely be disappointed in the outcome. Thankfully, I think think the FO has previously set a minimum going into this process that I believe increases the likelihood of either a high return for Garza in a trade OR retaining Garza through year end.

    The latter is not my preference but I am prepared for the possibility and comfortable w/ the potential ramifications. As Tom wrote earlier this week, "we have to win this trade" or words to that effect. I believe a non-trade is better than a "meh" trade.

  • In reply to Good Captain:

    Yes, agreed. Don't make a deal just to make one. Cubs can make that QO and get a supp 1st -- so they have to get better than that.

  • fb_avatar

    Give me a shot of Trevor Baer please with a Salazar chacer please. Maybe a nice Chun Chen on the side. Those 3 would be a nice way package.

  • Whoever we get for Garza, Epstein needs to pick a pitcher(s) to replace the "Wins" & "Innings" that Garza is taking with him.......

    Bench players we have......."Impact" player is a "MUST in this Garza deal.......

    The Cubs scouts will have to earn their meal ticket money now....whoever the scout that recommends the trade that needs to be made, his job is on the line if we get stuck with bad players.......

    I doubt very much we get a #1 prospect from the other team in a Garza deal......I would say at least a #3 prospect for least several prospects from their top ten team list......

    If Garza starts tomorrow, his last start in Chicago will be at White Sox park........lets cheer on for a No Hitter from Garza.......

    just think, when was the last time a pitcher threw a No Hitter and then gets traded afterwards?

    Other GM's will fear if they did not trade for Garza, then get beat by him in the playoffs, will be called to the office afterwards...........then again, if Garza gets hurt, the cries for Theo & Jed's head will be heard throughout the city..............but I look at his way, if Garza did get hurt, he would re-sign with the Cubs being advised by his agent, a two year deal the most, then work on his contract value again..........teams saw what happen with Haren and the Nationals....$13 milllion down the team will take a chance like that with Garza for that much if Garza gets hurt again.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    But you told us he wouldn't make another start after the last one vs. the A's?

    Anyway, I am sure Theo/Jed will do their due diligence and know that at worst, they have a 1st round sandwich pick coming if nothing happens.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    7pm start on Monday......still time......I just believe that Theo will not go down the wire on Garza this time.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    And if Garza is still on the team, will you abstain from posting for a wee.......just so there will, for once, be a consequence of your pronouncements being wrong?
    Or will you enchant us with even more Nostradamus-style prognostications?
    No reply was rhetorical......

  • In reply to Cubfucius:

    "for a week"....
    but wee applies in a sense too....

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Yeah like I wrote this is a must win for FO.

  • I'm a homer, so I would love to see a deal with the Giants if it includes Mike Kickham. To think of a starting rotation in two years that would include him and Pierce Johnson would make this Missouri State alumni proud.

  • Do they have to wait before Bryant signs before they can trade
    Garza? If there a very slim chance he does not sign.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    They'll keep those things separate.

  • Why would trading Garza have any impact what so ever on them signing Bryant?

  • Have to say I disagree that the Giants don't have much that the Cubs would want. It might be tough to find a center piece that's as attractive as Crick, but Clayton Blackburn and Chris Stratton seem like pretty nice pitching prospects. Not only that, but they've had a lot of young guys with reasonably high ceilings that have taken a step up this year, like Martin Agosta, Edwin Escobar and Adalberto Mejia.

    I would prefer that the Cubs get a premier arm and then some upside guys. That being said, if the Cubs are struggling to find a team that is going to give them a premier arm (or premier position player, for that matter), they could do a lot worse than dipping into the Giants system for a few of their arms.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Blackburn is a guy I added in and you may have missed it. Like him , but not crazy about him because he's not a projectable guy, so he has to improve his skill level to get better. I think I prefer Kickham as a headliner with Blackburn or Mejia as a secondary piece.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Stratton, Mejia and Agosta would be good with me.

  • I don't see the Giants ponying up for Garza. I feel like they are, as John hinted, going to be too gun shy after giving up Wheeler a couple of years ago. Sabean is not usually so bold and I'm starting to wonder if they're even going to be able to make a good run at it this year. The NL west seems pretty open, but they are playing really poorly. That's why I like Texas. They are in a tight division, have pressure to upgrade at SP, and are usually very aggressive at the deadline. Couple that with the facts that Theo and Daniels seem to have a good rapport and that Texas is loaded with prospects, and I think we have a match.

  • In reply to Denim Dan:

    The part about them less likely to make a big run is pretty insightful based on what we've heard. That's a potential downside. If the Giants were better, they might be tempted to make a bolder move.

  • The Giants wanted Soriano last year right? I wonder if throwing him in a garza deal and picking up a ton of money on both guys would do the trick

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Don't expect both Soriano and Garza in the same deal...not going to happen......Soriano is staying put....he likes Chicago..........Maybe a trade package like this below by Theo to get higher prospects and draft money coming back the Cubs way.....

    plus one of the following players.....
    or Maples

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    I really don't see Navarro going anywhere unless there is a MLB catcher that comes back in return. Who would the Cubs promote? Clevenger is gone, and I don't think there are any guys ready to go. I suppose we could see what Koyie is doing these days...

    I think it's too easy, and kind of lazy, to see that Navarro and Garza seem to have good chemistry and assume that they would be good guys to throw together. I think Navarro has more value than as just a throw-in piece to a trade.

  • In reply to TheSinisterUrge:

    Whats Koyie Hill doing these days?.....just kidding.

    Miguel Olivo is out there........some say "Way out there"

  • In reply to Ike03:

    No I was told they really had little interest. It was media who ran with it when Sori said he wouldn't go west.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    I'm not sure Soriano adds all that much.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    Soriano used his veto rights to deny a trade to SF. I'm pretty sure he'd do it again. He just doesn't want a cold weather type of place to play.......

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    No trade was on table but he won't go west.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Good point.

  • I am really intrigued by the Giants system Crick, Stratton, Blackburn, Kickham a lot of great talented upside pitchers. A deal like Crick and Blackburn or if the Cubs can't steal crick away grab Stratton Blackburn and Kickham. Cubs could use a Pitcher like Blackburn who is a workhorse just like garza and produces a lot of ground balls

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    Some decent arms there. Crick will be extremely tough to pry loose but maybe a combo of a couple of the other guys.

  • Hey guys anyone interested in my 2 tix for either Tue or Thu night? Face.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Wrigley or Kane?

  • In reply to SFToby:


  • Who else could the cubs throw in a garza deal to grab a big haul of the pitchers SF has (Crick,Stratton,Blackburn,Kickham,etc) also could the cubs do a sign and trade with Garza?

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    No sign and trades but I think it seems more about how much of a chance they have as to whether they give up a good prospect.

  • It appears the field is being whittled down a bit.

    COL/SD/TOR seem to be struggling a bit to hang in their races. ARI seems to prefer someone with control beyond this yr- read Gallardo. I have a hard time seeing the need for WAS. They already have 3 front-line SPs, IMO.

    It really seems the most likely partners are BOS/TEX/SF. Who is going to step up. Hoping it's BOS but guessing it'll be SF or TEX. It would be nice if there were a couple of additional suitors.

  • If we look at the situation from a perspective of need for a team that is both involved in a playoff push and the ability to pay for Garza in prospects and a future contract, Texas is a no brainer. Given that the Cubs and Rangers were close to a deal last year that looks like the most likely destination. Garza has the ability to be a big game performer that can put Texas in the WS and they'd be crazy not to go after him. SF has so many needs and is only a couple losses away from being completely out of it. The Nats pitching is already quite strong so that isn't much of a trade partner for Garza either.

  • I think Tex and Bos would be my top 2 but should be interesting.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Speaking of Boston, how about Anthony Ranaudo for Garza? He's rebounding at AA this year after a tough 2012 and would seem to be a guy Boston might be willing to part with.

    I like the Sox's Henry Owens because he's a lefty and throws hard, though he has serious control issues and appears to be a ways away.

    I should say that all I know about these guys is what I read online. What do you all think?

  • Perez would be a nice piece but do you think they'd be hesitant to give him up , given his recent success?

    I'd be happy with him + an interesting , lower-level talent. I would not be thrilled with a package that was essentially Olt + another guy or two. They really have no use for Olt right now. Hell, they can barely find ABs for Profar.

    With respect to BOS, I'd be excited by just about anything that Jedstein would reasonably accept from them. One of Barnes, Owens, Ranaudo plus a little garnish would do it for me. Webster probably isn't happening.

  • Report has it that Rangers will have scouts at the Sox / Cubs game...

    Source you ask?.......the internet has the infor...let your fingers do the walking....

    The Bigger "Need to Win" trade will be the Samardzija trade when Theo makes it down the road.......Theo rather spend Ricketts money on a boat load of young international kids than tie up a pitcher who never will become an "Ace".....

    Tom Loxas will write about when the time comes of how Theo & Jed traded the Best Cubs Pitcher since Greg Maddux......and I will refer Samardzija Cubs career as the same level as Ray Burris.......

    Felzz will play a Beatles album on a Sunday afternoon to pay respect to a departed Jeff and eat several frosted fried doughnut egg/bacon/ cheese sandwich......only to find out that the cook's long hair will be find mixed in with the egg and Felzz will believe it was Jeff's hair.....

    and John A. will run down the Prospects that the Cubs will get in return from a Samardzija trade and travel to all the major farm systems to get photos of them in action and do a Nine Q & A interview.......where the first question will be 'How soon can you get to Wrigley and win us Cubs fans a title?'

    Holy Cow.......when the Cubs are done with their trades and have themselves a great team...we can all say it was worth the wait......

    but if Castro and Rizzo cannot produce......well we have to start lining up teams and prospects for their trades.

    I will wait until 2016 for that discussion.

  • Reagarding the Ragers system Olt and Sardinas are interesting could the Cubs go after them and

  • Reagarding the Ragers system Olt and Sardinas are interesting could the Cubs go after them and pitching wise who do the Rangers have that cubs could target?

  • Let's hope that both offer the 1 keep prospect so that the Cubs
    have a choice of either offer.

  • Of the most likely trade partners, it would be of interest to find out how much IFA cash they still hold. Can someone provide this? I could look it up, but I'm lazy right now.
    I have the feeling that a Garza trade will include IFA money in lieu of a prospect, so's to ink Jimenez as soon as possible. If this occurs, I would expect that the Garza trade would include a player or two from the Cubs system as well.

  • What about Kevin Gregg? Trade him with Garza for added return ?

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    Boston could do that.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Barnes Owens Webster for Garza and Gregg? And if the Red Sox don't want to part ways with all 3 maybe look at a guy like Swihart ?

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    I think Boston laughs the Cubs out of the room with that one.

    The Cubs will be lucky to get Owens OR Webster in a deal for Garza.

    Throwing Gregg into the trade just doesn't add that much value.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    Seriously? Boston wouldn't trade those guys for three years of Samardzija.

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    Not really a fit, the Giants bullpen has been pretty great. Much more likely the Giants have interest in DeJesus, Soriano or Schierholtz. They have a need for a corner OFer and a centerfielder.

  • In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    How about to Detroit for Castellanos, Porcello, and a low level high risk/reward prospect?

  • fb_avatar

    I think a great number of you are going to be disappointed in what Garza brings in return. I think if the Cubs can get a package similar to what Detroit gave up for Anibal Sanchez last year that would be a great haul. Jacob Turner had soured a lot of potential suitors. Seems similar to Trevor Bauer to me, the only issue being what Cleveland gave up to get Bauer.

    GMs are going to point to Garza's injury history, his contract demands, etc. I hate being a sourpuss and I hope I am wrong. But he is simply not a frontline starter. I don't know if teams think the Cubs will really QO him either, because then you risk another injury and almost have to trade him next year with less leverage or re-sign him.

    Here is a great article on Garza's worth from Beyond The Box Score:

    I will say this, I will be glad when this deadline passes. Two years of talking about Garza has become absolutely nauseating.

  • In reply to Jivewired:

    Matt Garza sure looks like a #2 starter to me, which would make him a front line starter.

    And there is a 100% chance Matt Garza would get a qualifying offer.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Is Anibal Sanchez a frontline starter? Garza is a #2 on Chicago. Is he a #2 on the Dodgers? The Nationals? I'd take Strassburg and Zimmerman over Garza. BTW - if you are expecting a package built around a #2 guy, I'd agree with you. But too many people on here are treating him like a #1 starter. I'd say Garza is a #3. I can say this because he is a #2 on the Cubs and IMO Samardzjia is not a true #1.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter what you or I value Garza as. And regardless, he is still a 2.5 month rental no matter how you slice it.

    Like I said, a return similar to what MIA got for Sanchez would be an equitable haul. I wouldn't expect more than that. Worded the QO offer wrong - meant to say that teams would be willing to let the Cubs QO him. My bad.

    Like I said, tired of the Garza-for-a-king's-ransom trade talk that is now in day 446. I expect a lot of disappointment on this site by the readers once a deal is completed. Right now, he is worth somewhere between what LA gave up for Nolasco and a little more than a 20-30 compensatory pick. Not a very promising market.

    GMs don't trade with the emotion that all y'all have. They have a list of available players, what they will offer for them, what they will at most give up for them, and a point where they will pass. BAL passed on Garza. LA did as well. We learned last year that Garza is one pitch away from having no value.

    Prepare to be disappointed.

  • In reply to Jivewired:

    Isn't the point, though, that Garza is clear and away the best available starter out there? If there are several teams out there who need to upgrade to compete, and the FO is making their high price known, it stands to reason that something decent will be shipped back, doesn't it?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Denim Dan:

    Like John mentioned -- look what SF gave up for two months of Carlos Beltran. He was the best available hitter. It was a huge overpay and 29 other GMs know that. Just because he is the best available doesn't change what you are getting when you acquire him.

  • In reply to Jivewired:

    Yeah. We're actually making the same point. I don't think Garza is better than a #2, only that truly interested teams will have to pay for him as if he were an ace, just as the Giants overpaid for Beltran. I'm saying the haul may be better than Garza's actual talent should usually warrant.

  • In reply to Jivewired:

    I agree that people are quite likely to be disappointed with the Garza trade when it comes, but I wouldn't bet that 29 GM's learned the lesson from SF. Teams have been overpaying for talent for decades.

    All the Cubs HAVE to get for Garza is anyone package that looks better than what the supplemental pick would look like.

    Having said that, it seems inevitable that, once the trade is made, someone here will be able to say "called it," given the number of possibilities that have been discussed.

  • great update, thanks John!

  • In reply to SFToby:

    You're welcome. Tom should have more coming soon.

  • I have a feeling Christian Villanueva will be traded aswell if he can put together some good starts like he did today and in the beginning of the season, he looked very good today, and I think he would be a good guy to package aswell, what do you guys think?

  • In reply to Nik0522:

    Carlos Villanueva. Christian Villanueva is our 3rd base prospect in AA.

    I definitely think Carlos could be a candidate to be traded, especially to a team that might have injured starters and could use some help in the pen too.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    ha whoops! I knew Christian Villanueva sounded right but not exactly right for some reason lol...

  • Sidenote, and not to distract everyone from the conversation at hand, but Zastryzny made his pro debut in Boise tonight pitching an inning w no hits, a walk and 2 Ks in relief. Hopefully they find him a spot in the rotation soon. I'd like to see how he fares.

  • In reply to Jamato:

    I think college draftees usually take it easy after they sign. They've already thrown a lot of innings during their season and it seems like teams mostly give them 1-2 inning cameos, not full starts.

    For example, Pierce Johnson pitched in 6 games last year and threw 11 innings.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Ahh, I wasn't sure what the standard operating procedure was, but that sounds good to me. I wonder if pushing the deadline up a month this year will affect how they use these college pitchers that just signed for the remainder of the year?

  • I offer these players earlier in a trade....

    plus one of the following prospects.....
    or Maples

    in return, the Cubs would get from Texas......

    Jorge Alfaro - C
    Luke Jackson - P
    C.J. Edwards - P
    Alec Asher - P

  • fb_avatar

    Thanks for the great information, as usual, John. The mainstream media offers very little in terms of trade deadline articles, and when they do, it's maddening how generic and void of information they are (and apparently they are too lazy to find out or research potential trade partners and prospects that might be included in any deal). Instead we get stuff like "Soriano's recent surge may help his trade value."

    The amount of work that clearly goes into most of the articles on this site is exhausting just to read. :-)

  • Scott Hairston to the Nationals, per Ken Rosenthal.

  • fb_avatar

    Being out here in the Washington, D.C. area and following the Nats closely, I would be ecstatic if the Cubs could get A.J. Cole for Garza. I realize Karns is closer to being Big League ready, but I'd take Cole and a couple longshots with decent upside for Garza at this point. It would beat a supplemental pick.

  • fb_avatar

    Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 5m

    Source: #Nationals acquire OF Scott Hairston from #Cubs.


    Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 3m

    #Cubs getting minor-league pitcher from #Nationals for Scott Hairston. Will be announced in morning.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    After seeing him mash that HR to center today they just couldn't pass up on such a hot commodity haha. But really, good luck to Scott, and I didn't really see him being a piece we could move. Hopefully the pitcher we get back has a moderate ceiling.

  • There is a God.

  • @Ken_Rosenthal #Cubs getting minor-league pitcher from #Nationals for Scott Hairston. Will be announced in morning.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    Yawn. Hairston for a bag of balls and some infield dirt.

    It frustrates me that a guy like Hairston is never included in a bigger deal. Like Garza, Hairston, Gregg.

    Maybe the Cubs are getting some IFA money.

  • In reply to Gregory Shriver:

    It doesn't happen because it doesn't work the way you want it to. The total does not equal the sum of the parts in these deals. Its not like if the Nationals were trying to trade for Garza and were offering their second best pitching prospect but hte Cubs wanted the best, that adding Scott Hairston to the deal would make the Nats budge. Package deals still need to be looked at as seperate deals for each guy. Plus in some instances the big package deals that fans throw around make no sense in regards to the receiving team's 40 man roster. We send 4 MLB players and get back 5 minor leaguers, maybe one of whom is on their 40 man. That means the other team trades 5 guys, but then also needs to get rid of 3 other guys off their 40 to make room. So in essence they would be giving up 8 guys, It just doesn't work.

  • Any predictions on who pitcher could be?

  • I'm thinking a low A pitcher, the Nats still have a ok farm system, not as good as it used to be though.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm guessing it's someone who won't have to be put on the 40 man roster.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Maybe even IFA Pool $$$.

  • You think it's an mlb ready pitcher ?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chicago Cubs Fan 24:

    I'm thinking you may be joking, but no way. But Hairston is signed for two years, right?

  • Anyone have a feeling that Edwin Jackson might also get traded?.......

    Is Brett Jackson getting the call up?......

    or Szczur?

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    EJax isn't going anywhere. You don't sign a guy to a 4 year deal with a huge signing bonus just to trade him half a season into said deal.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    Right. Besides, nobody is going to sign with the Cubs in the offseason for the long term if the Cubs show they'll deal them away without blinking.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Only if the Cubs eat 75 percent of his contract. And of course, the Cubs have to keep some guys to pitch.

  • Who do we call up now that we only have Sappelt as a righty in the OF now? Dare we say, Lake? I figured that they would be leaving him down there until September, but maybe they want to push him some...?

  • fb_avatar

    I believe the Cubs will get a fringe pitcher and IFA cash. Maybe they are trying to get below the 15% threshold.

  • In reply to Ray A:

    Could be. Details not known right now. They're saying minor league pitcher, but could be more involved.

Leave a comment