Baseball emissary Peter Gammons took to Twitter over the weekend to drop some knowledge, including a piece about the Chicago Cubs’ trade prospects, stating simply: “Jim Hendry has no interest in trading Dempster or Garza during season.”

While it’s wonderful to get these kind of snippets of information, the nature of Twitter makes it exceedingly difficult to give the statement much context, or meaningful analysis.

That Jim Hendry has “no interest” in trading either Garza or Dempster this year is not altogether surprising. Garza will be relatively cheap in 2012, and Ryan Dempster has a player option he’ll undoubtedly exercise. Given the flux at the back of the Cubs’ rotation, it would be more than understandable if they wanted to head into 2012 with some stability.

On the other hand, saying that “Jim Hendry” has “no interest” in trading Dempster or Garza “during season” just begs for parsing.

What does Gammons mean when he says “Jim Hendry” doesn’t want to trade them? Does that mean, perhaps, that the Cubs organizationally would be better-served by trading one or both of the pitchers, but that Hendry, because his job is on the line, doesn’t want to make a deal? And “no interest” is not the same thing as “won’t.” No interest instead sounds like something in which you don’t have the affirmative interest in actively pursuing, but the possibility of the something is not precluded. And, finally, why did Gammons say “during [the] season”? Is he suggesting that the Cubs might consider dealing the duo in the offseason? That, of course, would make no sense as, no matter how bleak the Cubs’ 2012 prospects might look, they are certainly brighter than 2011. Why would the Cubs hold onto the pitchers now, only to deal them later?

In the end, I just can’t get myself to take the Gammons statement as more than what we already know: the Cubs are reluctant to trade Dempster or Garza, but would listen to offers on either one. It would take a steep return for the Cubs to consider moving either one (“no interest” in moving them), but that doesn’t mean the Cubs wouldn’t consider a deal if it made the team better in the immediate future.

  •!/profile.php?id=550664336 Simon G.

    I’m in agreement with your take on Gammons statements regarding Garza and Dempster. At this stage of the game it’s prudent for Hendry to at the very least paint the picture of “stability” for the sakes of his job and the fledgling fan base. Having said that, I agree also that neither is going anywhere. However, interesting that the subject of Zambrano wasn’t mentioned by Gammons. I wouldn’t be suprised if the Cubs jumped at the chance of dealing him if at all possible. Particularly if it involved any type of young talent.

    • Brett

      I agree that the Cubs would be far more “interested” in dealing Zambrano than Garza or Dempster.

    • RoughRiider

      Interesting phrase “fledgling fan base”.

  • Evan P

    Robinson Chirinos just got called up to the Rays… Just another chance to grade the Garza trade, eh?

  • bobbyd

    Hi! First time poster, long time reader…


    You’re right about semantics: e.g (A) “I won’t wear only a banana hammock in the Wrigley bleachers” vs (B) “I have no interest in wearing only a banana hammock in the Wrigley bleachers.”

    In the case of ‘A’, if I say that “I will not wear only a banana hammock in the Wrigley bleachers” that means that regardless of *ANY* offer (be it of a financial or sexual or otherwise offer) I *will not* wear only a banana hammock to a game at Wrigley. In the case of ‘B’, while I may have no interest in wearing a banana hammock to a game, if my wearing said hammock might result in say, oh, $1M or sex with…I dunno…Bar Refaeli, my interest would uh, rise.

    Goddamn semantics.

    • Brett

      Outstanding first comment.

    • TWC

      But *IF* the banana hammock is a Bleacher Nation-branded model, how does that change the calculus?

      • bobbyd

        Oooh….tough call. I might take $500K and/or Mila Kunis.

        • bobbyd

          I lie.

          If it were a BN banana hammock it’d do it for free. :-)

          • TWC

            See? The more you think about it, the better it sounds.

          • Brett

            We’re going to make this happen.

            • TWC

              Hmmm. My bluff has been called.

              Might need to do some manscaping before this happens…

            • bobbyd

              Supply said hammock and I’m down. :-)

              But ya’ll gotta buy me beer afterwords. And not just any beer…something fancy like a Duvel or a Chimay.

              See…”won’t” vs “no interest”.

              Caveats. Always with the caveats….

              • Caleb

                First comment, and you’re dropping “banana hammock” all over the place.

                Welcome aboard, sir. Welcome aboard.

  • bobbyd

    Thank you, Brett.

    I subscribe to the “better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt” school of Interweb posting.

    Your site has a significantly higher caliber of writing than some of some of the other sites I’ve read (e.g. the Cubs MLB site…ugh…I dunno who some of those posters are but they need a good beating).

    You’re a damned elitist and I love it. :-)

    • Brett

      I like to think that readers/commenters are a reflection of the sites they frequent, so I immediately find you well-spoken, wise, and probably handsome.

      • bobbyd

        See, that’s why the innertubes is so fun.

        I’m really a midget with a hair-lip and a body hair problem that never passed 3rd grade English.

        I have a ghost-poster writing for me.

    • Hogie

      Absolutely agree! I think that the caliber of the average commenter on this site is significantly above those of other sites (and far less crude and petty). Along with the writing, obviosly, it’s one of the reasons I have become borderline obsessed with this site.

  • die hard

    if deemed untouchable, then chances are will be traded….just a negotiating ploy….I believe that Castro has peaked ala Corey Patterson and Felix Pie….if right, why not do a real blockbuster trade using him as centerpiece…..a 10 player deal involving Boston or Yankees….

  • Joe

    I think he means Jim Hendry has no interest because everyone knows he’s done for. That’s why he said “during the season”. During the OFFseason, Hendry will be fired and the new guy might have interest in trading them. He knows Hendry will be around for the season but not for the offseason.