I would never criticize another writer solely for making a factual mistake. It happens to all of us and, while it’s regrettable, it’s understandable that once in a while, your memory of a game-changing double was actually a game-changing single, or a Scott Servais K was actually a Tyler Houston K.

But what I cannot tolerate is when those factual mistakes are used in service of a particular narrative, which is, in part, driven by the mistaken fact.

To wit, from Phil Rogers:

The last time Matt Garza went to the plate at Wrigley Field, Mike Quade told him not to swing. He was worried Garza might hit into a double play, which would keep Starlin Castro from having a shot to get his 200th hit at home. And Garza still swung, grounding out, which led to Castro getting walked intentionally.

No big deal, maybe. But Greg Maddux wouldn’t have swung.

“I was in my mode,” Garza said. “I’m going to go out there and compete. I’m not going to give up. That’s what it is.”

Are the Cubs shopping Garza because he’s a free swinger? Hardly, but after that game on Sept. 21, Quade gave Garza a surprisingly lukewarm endorsement.

Doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of Matt Garza, does it?

Rogers is suggesting that the Cubs are considering trading Matt Garza because he isn’t a team player, and he uses the September 21st game to illustrate his critique. If only Matt Garza had followed Mike Quade’s instruction, Starlin Castro wouldn’t have been batting with first base open (Bryan LaHair was on first for Garza’s at bat and went to second when Garza grounded out), wouldn’t have intentionally walked, and probably would have gotten his 200th hit at home. Shame on Matt Garza, Phil Rogers suggests.

The only problem?

Starlin Castro wasn’t intentionally walked after Matt Garza grounded out.

Castro walked, sure. But it came on five pitches, the last of which was just off the edge of the plate, a ball that Castro easily could have put wood on. Instead, he took it, to the surprise of everyone watching, including the Cubs’ announcing team. Castro was walked once intentionally in the game … in the 5th inning.

I don’t expect Phil Rogers to remember every moment of every Cubs game – I certainly don’t – but a long-discussed, highly-publicized moment like this? And a moment upon which he’s basing this criticism of Garza? Could he not be bothered to, say, look at a box score or game recap?

I’m not here to blast Rogers for his factual mistake, which, alone, is excusable neglect. I won’t even dig Rogers too hard for ostensibly contending that Garza was plainly wrong for refusing a questionable order from a manager who isn’t even in charge anymore.

But I’m pretty irritated that Rogers uses that factual inaccuracy to make Matt Garza look even worse. It fuels a superfluous and manufactured criticism of a man who was, by all accounts, a model teammate in 2011, and cared more about the Cubs’ success than almost any other Cub.

Worse, that manufactured criticism is not even necessary to justify trading Garza. Matt Garza is not Milton Bradley ripping on the fans, or Carlos Zambrano walking out on his teammates. Garza is a valuable piece and a respected member of the Cubs’ clubhouse. All things equal, the Cubs would keep him for many years.

The decision to trade Matt Garza is predicated on the answers to a pair of simple questions: (1) can the Cubs reap more long-term value by trading Garza for multiple pieces now? and (2) can the Cubs reasonably approximate Garza’s value to the team in 2012 and 2013 by way of the players returned and the salary saved in the trade?

If the answer to the first question is yes, the Cubs should consider trading Matt Garza. If the answer to both questions is yes, the Cubs absolutely must trade him. And I didn’t need to concoct a specious criticism of an otherwise great player to come to that conclusion.

  • Coach Harris

    It is sounding like the Nationals are emerging as favorites to land Prince.  It actually kind of makes sense he would sign there.

    It is possible that “Urmom” was wrong yesterday?

  • Spoda17

    FB, very nice facts, and a great post(s).  I love it when people comment on facts based on opinion *cough* Sam…(opinion is fine, but be able to back it up, and be prepared when someone calls you on it…), and then when called on their less than factual opinion, they kinda disappear…

    Anyway, just my two cents, but I strongly feel we are not going to sign Fielder.  I also feel equally strong that we are going to trade Garza.  I am totally fine with not having either for the right reasons.  As I have been posting on other sites, we are not going to win the WS next year, or even go to the playoffs, even with Garza and Fielder.  We are that far away at our current pace and projected moves.  So with that being said,  I am totally fine with Theo rebuilding, I have faith in him.  I will let him prove me wrong before I throw him to the wolves and judge team Theo’s moves when we haven’t even seen any result, good or bad, from anything they have done to this point.

    We have thrown good money after bad for a lot of years now, I am personally excited to see it done differently; and yes I think it is the right approach.  I am not saying to never sign the big money contract, but now I just don’t think it is the right time.  I would even pass on Cepedes… too old…  Sign the 19 yr old…

  • #17

    I have long disliked Phil Rogers. Ever since he picked his “all-city” team and picked every single White Sox player over Cubs positional players in ’98 I lost the little respect I had for him. He picked Magglio Ordonez over Sosa for RF when Sosa was coming off 60+ HR back-to-back seasons and on his way to a third. Anyway, who is the one player on the Cubs you saw at the top of the dugout into every pitch of every meaningless game at the end of the season?? Matt Garza!! Easily noticed by anyone who was watching the games. On top of it, Garza cheered for his teammates on days he didn’t start. Phil Rogers….keep it in ya!! Any and all Rogers’ insults are welcomed. Glad too see BN is back in full force after the holidays..

  • Toby

    I hear that Phil is being considered as the lead in “Dinner for Schmucks 2”. Phil’s column states that writers need more guidance from the HOF in voting for players who cheated by taking PEDs. Phil should be asking why writers have the vote at all. They should report news, not make it. They went to school to learn how to diagram sentences, not pick Hall of Famers. If he writes article after article about PED users such as “MVP” Ryan Braun getting suspended for cheating, then why is he asking about perhaps voting them in for using the juice?

  • Tim

    I’ll take you a step further on this one. Rogers is regularly hard on minority players, he regularly is misinformed, and he writes the least insightful baseball column of any major city newspaper. He’s been a problem for years. That he can’t be bothered to do his homework either is no surprise

  • Big Joe

    Ummm, yeah. And something else irritating? A blogger jumping on a credentialed sports writer, and thus, bringing him undue attention. Last time I checked, not too many people give a hoot what Rogers says. He’s not exactly a well liked guy around these boards, from what I’ve seen. People make factual mistakes, as you said. His remarks are right up there with the bevy of gramatical errors, and misspellings I see on this site on a daily basis; not worth bringing up. The only thing missing, from your page long tirade, was a highlighted link to a post, affectionately referred to as “as I previously reported”. Aside from the time it took to read this article (time I will never get back), the only thing that sticks out is the absolute hypocrisy behind slamming a real member of the media, behind the preface of a “well, I wouldn’t normally be all over this guy, but…” disclaimer from the start. Must be a slow day at the office.

    • Tommy

      Hey Big Joe – the difference is, nobody here is getting paid to give their opinions.

      • Rick Vaughn

        Big Joe thinks people care about Big Joe. That’s just downright adorable.

        Keep up the good work Brett.

    • Kansas Cubs Fan

      Nobody asked you to spend your time reading the article.

    • MoneyBoy

      hey “Big Joe” … don’t know who ya are, don’t care who ya are … Brett does fabulous work here … so STFU..

      Brett … ^5 brother … here’s how little attention I pay to anything Rogers says … until you brought it up I hadn’t heard of it.  It’s simply another in a LONG, irritating string of inaccuracies.  With all the quality writers out there in mainstream media who have lost their jobs, the notion that Zell’s TribCo keeps VanDyck, Sullivan and Rogers on the baseball beats is an insult to everyone who remotely cares about and follows professional baseball in Chicago.

      Mike Quade’s disaffection for Garza may be the best endorsement of him I can think of.

    • Ron Swanson

      Big Joe = Phil Rogers?

    • EtotheR

      Joe…while plenty of bloggers exist only to feed a Kardashian-like need for “me too” attention, the editor of this site is most certainly not among them. His writings are carefully constructed, and he never tries to present himself as being a profound insider. Through genuine hard work, he has developed legitimate inside sources, become a dependable aggregator of print and internet articles and rumors, and offers his opinion as part of the discussion.

      So…your rants about the quality of the site came across being fairly random, and could likely be applied to virtually any internet-based discussion. Before your next one…take a little time to look around. Your ramblings were far more deserving of your scrutiny than any of the posts or articles on here…

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Thanks for the thoughts, Big Joe. Some responses that you may not read – I don’t want to rob any more of your time:

      (1) If you’d care to point out a “bevy” of grammatical errors and misspellings you see in my articles – on a daily basis, even! – I’d love to see them. I do the best I can, without an editor, and I think I do quite well. Again, if you’d like to round up the “bevy” of errors among the multiple thousand words I write each day, I’ll count myself fortunate that there aren’t more. If you can find them, that is. You may think them not worth bringing up (except in non-specific, critical comments), but I do. Please: give me hell.

      (2) You are entitled to criticize the articles here – it’s encouraged, frankly. I guess I just don’t see where you are criticizing the substance of the article.

      (3) There is nothing at all inconsistent between (a) not making it a practice of ripping “real members of the media” (as though that meaningless label somehow shields certain people from criticism from the lowly likes of a pajamas-wearing “blogger”) and (b) ripping a “real member of the media” on the rare occasion that they deserve it. I’m not sure I understand the hypocrisy. Perhaps you’d care to explain.

      (4) “Media, noun – Communication channels through which news, entertainment, education, data, or promotional messages are disseminated. Media includes every broadcasting and narrowcasting medium such as newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, billboards, direct mail, telephone, fax, and internet.” Things I am not: a journalist, a self-aggrandizing douche. Things that I am: real, a member of the media. Just thought I’d clear that up.

      • JR1908

        Well said Brett… I don’t think I have ever seen a grammatical error on your end.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. I’m sure there are many … but there are also many, many words.

          • Cedlandrum

            sure there are some, but not that many and none that are tragic.

      • Tommy

        Brett, in fairness to Big Joe – I think when he was talking about grammatical errors, he was referring to commenters, not you.

        We all did get on him a little hard. After all, he did just give an opinion, the same as the rest of us.

  • Big Joe

    Point taken, Tommy. And I would guess that Rogers is well paid, by folks smarter than you, or I.

    • Tommy

      Big Joe – it’s entirely possible that he is paid well by folks smarter than you or me, but it’s just as likely that they’re not. Being more successful or wealthy is not always an indication of intelligence.

      But I digress – the important thing to remember is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and beyond that, to voice their opinion. Brett voiced his (which is within his right), the same way you voiced yours (which is within your right). Yes, even Phil Rogers has the right.

      So, thanks for sharing your opinion here. Most of us that come here frequently, really appreciate the stuff Brett writes and I can only speak for myself, but one of the things I really enjoy about him is that he’s a fan, just like me. He sees someone dogging on a Cubbie unfairly (at least in his view) and it pisses him off. That’s normal. And frankly, one thing you said was dead on, things are slow at the office as far as baseball is concerned, so this is what he chose to write about on his blog. I agree that just ranting on someone isn’t the best topic, but in fairness, isn’t that what you were doing in your post?

    • Spoda17

      Big Joe, actually you have a grammatical error… your post is, “Point taken, Tommy. And I would guess that Rogers is well paid, by folks smarter than you, or I.”  Your first phrase is not a sentence, but you end with a period.  Also, you never start a sentence with “and.”

      Don’t worry, I don’t charge for grammar corrections.  Also, I really hate it when people try to make a point, but can only come up with a criticism of someone’s spelling or grammar.  News flash, this is a blog, on the internet… not a column in the Tribune.

      Oh, and I will also make grammar mistakes in the future… not the best typist…

      Let’s talk about baseball and the Cubs.  Let’s reserve the “negativity” of others for somewhere else.  Opinions are great, and I encourage all to have one, and to disagree, but let’s keep it to baseball.

  • Big Joe

    Well, Money, criticism opens up the possibility of being criticized. I have no problem with Brett. For the most part, he does a fine job. Your loyalty is admirable, to a point. My opinion of the article wasn’t an attack on Brett. It was mere criticism of his article. I wasn’t aware that things were so one-sided around here. Critique other’s work, but not the webmaster’s. Gotcha. Thank you for reminding me.

    • JR1908

      Big Joe or Phil Rogers disguised as Big Joe, we all know that no one is perfect. But most of us have seen enough b.s. work from Rogers and are sick of it. His points don’t make sense and seem to be really far out. And frankly it’s flat out frustrating…

      • Rick Vaughn


    • Tony S

      If your criticism of the webmasters post was deserved there wouldnt be an issue. Your post just comes across as somebody having a bad day looking to vent.

    • MoneyBoy

      Hey … for the record … Brett is highly educated, well written, and his posts are well constructed and usually well referenced.  Your criticisms as to grammar are simply idiotic.  There are others here who are barely literate.

      As to me standing up for Brett – that is based on being a part of this community for quite some time now.  I respect him, I respect many others who comment regularly here.   I do NOT respect someone who pops up out of the blue and critiques Brett for innocuous mistakes.

      Brett doesn’t need me to stand in his stead.  He’s a big boy and fully capable of defending (not that it’s needed) himself – as he so eloquently has shown.  The matter of Phil Rogers is another matter.   As you correctly point out he has few fans in the blogosphere … all the more to wonder why the Tribune chooses to pay him to spew his nonsense.  For Brent to opine on his mistakes is, as I remember, what is called the First Amendment.

      Oh – and I apologize for bringing up facts:  I watched the game in question and Brett’s absolutely right.  Castro did not swing at what was clearly a ball four.  BB nearly came out of his chair at the plate discipline shown in a critical situation.  Garza was in the right to do what he did; Quade is a dolt and was given his just reward … GONE.  Score one for the blogger!!!!

      Die Hard … ^5 dude … I second the sentiment of making him a captain.

  • die hard

    Keeping Garza and making him team captain will unite a team that will otherwise be entering spring training with less going for it than the spring training team in Major League.

  • Big Joe

    Well said. Thank you. I’d bet you were under that belief before you read the article, too. That was my only point. It doesn’t take a genius, to recognize a fool. The article was both hypocritical, and unnecessary. I didn’t post my comments to start a war. I am finished.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I can’t tell to whom you are replying now, but, on the assumption that you aren’t replying to my carefully considered response to your critique, I’d ask you to give it a look. You needn’t respond if you don’t care to, but dropping what you’ve said and then bolting before I’ve had a chance to respond is a bit like dropping a fart on your way out the door. At least let me bitch about the smell.

      • LJ

        Excellent analogy, Brett.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          I believe its roots come from a Family Guy episode. I may have given it my own phrasing.

    • Martin

      So, in other words, you wanted to criticize an article and would prefer that no one challenge your opinions? Hypocrisy, thy name is…sigh…Big Joe.

  • Ryan

    Interesting on MLBTR that they say Toronto unlikely to get Garza. Is that posturing or does it eliminate one of the teams that most fans wanted to see him go to?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I’ll be discussing the Ken Rosenthal article upon which that is based soon, but there’s not much new or definitive to it. The Blue Jays don’t like the Cubs’ high asking price.

      • Ryan

        ok im interested in seeing what you have to say. I know they haven’t been crazy about the asking price

      • BetterNews

        Blue Jays can take a hike then.

      • BetterNews

        And what do the Blue Jays know anyway. They haven’t gone to the playoffs since ’94 and now want to make a sucker deal with the Cubs. And the only reason they won 2 WS was because they were an expansion team and capitalized on it. The Cubs “never” had that advantage throughout their history. Stick to hockey ya bums!

        • Rick Vaughn

          In all fairness to the Jays, if we were in the save division as the Yankees and the Red Sox over the last twent;y years, we more than likely never would have tasted the playoffs either.

          • BetterNews

            Come on man, that is a stretch!

          • BetterNews

            2008 Cubs had better record than the Yanks or Sawx. Give me a break.

            • Tommy

              I gotta lean with Rick on that one, Better. We had a better record, but we weren’t in the AL, and we weren’t in the same division with NY, Boston, and TB! Ouch!

              On the bright side, Tribune Company is gone and we’ve got a real owner with a real team President, and a real GM. Things are looking up Cub fans!

              • BetterNews

                Tommy—Wait a minute. The 2008 Cubs had a higher winning pecentage than any team in baseball! And this was in the NL central where a DH can’t be utilized. I disagree. Can’t explain their collapse. Well, yes I can, take that back. That’s why we’re rebuilding.

                • Tommy

                  LOL, alright, alright, maybe you have a point, buddy! That was a pretty solid team now that you remind me.

                  I’m heading to bed folks! Night!

                  GO CUBS!

                  • BetterNews

                    Goodnight brother.

      • Martin

        What percentage of leaks to national reporters are strategic and designed to influence negotiations? 80%? 90%? I feel like the timing of the Blue Jays leak isn’t coincidental to the timing of the “Tigers willing to deal Turner” leak.

  • Spoda17

    … last comment on this.. opinions good, disagreements (even with Brett), perfectly fine, criticizing people for any other reason than baseball comments, not so much…

    Go Cubs!

    • Tommy

      haha, nice Spoda!

  • Cubsin

    Well, it could be posturing, or it could be speculation. Even if the Blue Jays really aren’t interested in giving up the prospects needed to seal the deal, letting the Yankees and Red Sox know they’re out of the bidding strikes me as a really bad idea.

    • Dukie11

      The only benefit I see for the Blue Jays is if they come out and say the price is too high, it may lead their counterparts to realize they don’t need to offer the sun and the moon in order to get Garza. If everyone tempers their offers the Jays may get him for less.

  • drew

    I would also be hesitant to claim that a bevy of gramatical errors on a blog, whether they did or did not occur, are mistakes of the same magnitude. The guy wrote an entire piece on a game situation that never happened.

  • Goatbusters

    I would like to throw my two cents in about the criticism of intelligent posting. Some of the posters (myself included) post without scouring over what we wrote for mistakes, that doesn’t mean our points are any less intelligent or valid. There are many doctors, lawyers and brainiac scientists that can’t change a tire, but that doesn’t make them any less intelligent.

  • Tommy

    I love this site, I swear. I just found it a couple weeks ago.

    Keep up the good work, Brett. I sincerely enjoy all your articles, and 99% of all the commenters. UrMom notwithstanding. And by that, I don’t mean your mom, Brett.

  • KidCubbie

    Go Cubs. God bless. Goodnight.

  • Tommy

    I read that TB is in the market for a DH. I wonder if there’s any chance of us unloading Soriano on them? I hate to sound like a broken record, but I just don’t know what we’re going to do with all these outfielders if we have another 3 years of Soriano in left.

    I’m seriously hoping to get rid of Sori and Byrd and fill their spots with Coco Crisp and Jackson. We would have some serious small ball speed with that lineup. If we aren’t going to have much power, I think we could win with some defense and speed. Didn’t Florida win it all in 97 with very little power?

    EDIT: This is NOT to imply that I think we are going to win it all in any way, shape, or form!

    • Dukie11

      I could not agree more, providing Jackson is ready. Crisp, Jackson, Dejesus is a solid defensive outfield with very good speed. We’d still be in trouble with only Lahair and Soto giving us any even minimal power production, but at least we would play solid d. Trade for some young pitching, go with the speedy outfield and we will worry about power at the corners as we move forward.

  • Sully777

    Came upon this site last week; thoroughly enjoy the postings and articles. As for the Blue Jays possibly cooling on a Garza deal-my hope is it is indeed posturing. The Jays and Tigers(with Turner, Crosby, Oliver and Smyly) seem to have the young starting arms the Cubs covet. The Jays seem absolutely loaded(6 of their top 8 prospects are pitchers with grades of B+ or higher from minorleagueball.com). If Drabek in fact was dangled as the prime return on Garza, I’m glad the Cubs didn’t pull the trigger.There is nothing wrong with going into the season with Garza; and letting some teams desperate for SP over-pay for him before the trade deadline. Some of the suggestions have been highly interesting surrounding Soriano; but my sense is the Rizzo kid from SD is factoring heavily in this Garza situation as the Cubs weigh offers.

  • 2much2say

    Ironically, it appears the Cubs are down to the Yankees and the Tigers in the Garza sweepstakes. I prefer the Turner Castellanos option to the Montero Banuelos option

  • Sully777

    I agree with 2much; the Tigers seem a far better option than the Yanks based on the starting arms that may be offered(a package of Turner and Castellanos is likely wishful thinking). As much as our farm system needs starting pitching prospects, I’d be happy with a trio consisting of Turner and two others from a group consisting of Crosby, Oliver or Smyly(even if we needed to throw something in along with Garza to make it happen). As I mentioned in a previous posting; the Blue Jays have an exciting group of prospects as well(such as SP’s McGuire, Hutchison, Nicolino, Norris and others-including a young RF prospect in Marisnick).

    • ferrets_bueller

      I completely disagree with you guys- the Yankees  package is much better than Detroit’s.  The only elite player the Tigers have to offer, who is anywhere near the majors, and anywhere near being a safe bet, is Turner.  Castellanos is still very low level, and is still a very large risk.  He was considered to be a great athlete when drafted, but his approach to the plate was a huge question.  He was regarded as an immense risk.  He has done nothing to alleviate that.  Turner and Castellanos is not wishful thinking at all, as the Cubs price is much higher- those other two prospects had better be great (which detroit really doesnt have much to offer…)

      On the other hand, you have the Yankees potential package (albeit definite wishful thinking), which should include Montero, a guy who has already hit with great success in the majors, with significantly higher offensive potential than Castellanos (not even in the same league, especially approach-wise), and a pitcher (either of the B’s) who is pretty close to the majors.

      Ranking the potential of the top four between the two

      1. Montero

      2. Tie- Turner and Betances/Banuelos

      3. Castellanos

      Ranking the chances of the players panning out

      1. Montero (by a large margin)

      2. Turner

      3. the B’s (slightly behind turner)

      4 Castellanos (not even in the same area code)


      On top of this, Montero fills a need immediately- 1B.  Castellanos won’t fill any needs at least until 2014- and by that time, who knows what will have happened.

      • Jeff

        How do you even know what the Yankee package is? Are you privy to the internal discussions?

        I don’t understand why everyone wants Castellanos so bad, MLB rates him lower than Vitters at third base.

        Not completely sold on the Yankee pitchers, and if we are trading Garza, we need pitching back, not a catcher playing first base.

        If we want a quality defensive and offensive first baseman, go get Rizzo.

        • BetterNews

          You’re the real Jeff!

          • Jeff

            Sure ain’t the fake one…lol
            Capitol J here!

            • BetterNews

              I’m listening.

            • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

              There is only one true Jeff, King Jeff. The rest of you are his minions.

          • BetterNews

            You have got facts. Yes you are the real Jeff.

      • BetterNews

        Where is this package?

  • Mike

    The Yankees, Tigers and possibly the Rangers are the only teams that would make sense to be involved. They have the prospects(namely pitching) and there is a really good chance these teams will make the playoffs. Garza’s real value comes from what he can do when a team gets into the playoffs. Look at the SP pitching performances for each of these teams in last years playoffs and tell me who wouldn’t be interested in what Garza brings.

    He would represent a valuable piece to increase their probability of getting to the World Series. I like the Blue Jays prospects, but they are multiple pieces away from being a realistic playoff team. If I were the Blue Jays, I wouldn’t trade prospects at this point.

    The Cubs need to stick to their guns and not move off their ask price.

    • BetterNews

      Garza’s real value is getting a team to the playoffs first! And than the added value over a pitcher that hasn’t had playoff experience. He is a “gold”mine, and the Cubs shouldn’t ask for anything short of a “gold” mine in return.

  • louslew

    Great post Better News. I would only add, or accept anything short of a “Gold” mine.

  • Mike F

    The Yankees aren’t in it, there interest is very similar to the Cubs on Fielder as it was the Cubs on Pujols. The difference is the Cubs are practical and driven by age and weight concerns and offers were and are high dollar just not mentally impaired hears with these two individuals.

    The trade is listless and floundering, because the Cub’s rightly want his value to the Chicago Cubs. The Yankees being the Yankees want to hold back and pick one likely and maybe two of the over hyped Yankee prospects. But clearly if they were able to offer 2 even 3 real conversations would occur. Toronto is out, Miami wants him, but they won’t put forth the quality it would take to get him, oh and Gabby Sanchez, is not the kind of guy with age and ST asset nature who should even been in such a discussion. Further, I think Ceda would really be a blow to the regime’s credibility, he’s a pyle of junk and when you have kids who are ready and Carpenter who has a more dynamic arm and throws 100, it would be an insult.

    And that leaves Detroit, Detroit has the big and best piece in Turner. I like the 2 lefties, and the 3B prospect. But I don’t see them putting a 3 player deal Turner, Castelliallanos unless someone suddenly ups his offer. But more to the point, if this indeed reflects what they see him as worth, and I believe they listened and established what he’s worth to us, clearly the market as defined by Theo Garza is worth more to us than these guys. SO, it’s time to begin negotiating a new deal. It doesn’t kill the deal, but it gives these clubs a chance to reconsider and honestly, the Cubs are unlikely to get his value as imbecilic blow it up talk drove down the price in the mind of some of these half wits. I would hope the Cubs now take a little more aggressive stance with Fielder and Jackson and make a run at them, while turning to moving Byrd, Soto, Marmol and others.