Quantcast

Thanks to back-to-back great starts to begin the season – and a high profile throw that was SportsCenter’s number one “Not Top Play” this week – Matt Garza’s name is shining brightly in lights these days. We were already on edge a bit about the Cubs’ plans for Garza, who is under contract through 2013, but with each passing start, questions about whether the Cubs are going to extend the 28-year-old or trade him are going to continue to mount.

Chicago Cubs’ President of Baseball Operations Theo Epstein addressed some of those questions, and offered a bit more than he usually does on the subject. But, as is his way, he played things very close to the vest.

‘‘Anytime you’re contemplating significant personnel moves, you have to look at the organization as a whole and where you’re going,’’ Epstein said, according to Gordon Wittenmyer. ‘‘One week’s worth of performance, let alone one season’s worth, doesn’t necessarily impact that significantly.”

Epstein, of course, means not only that Garza’s performance over two starts isn’t going to dictate how the Cubs proceed, but also the Cubs’ overall performance. Epstein went on to describe the lens through which he’s viewing a decision on Garza’s future with the Cubs.

‘‘Some issues are best examined up close, from 10 feet away, and some are best examined from 10,000 feet away,” Epstein said of the Cubs’ plans for Garza. “That’s probably one that falls in the latter. It’s sort of a big-picture issue.’’

That’s a very dispassionate view of a very popular player, which is how you want the guy running the show to proceed. It would be very easy to be caught up in both the crummy appearance of the team as a whole and in the good early performances of Garza, and perhaps make a snap decision about locking Garza up long term (to engender positivity from the fans) or deal him for prospects (because the team looks crummy overall). I’m glad to hear that Epstein remains committed to thinking about things like this within the overall context of “the plan,” and isn’t going to be swayed by early season small samples.

Not that I expected him to behave any differently.

As for the future of Garza, I remain open to either an extension or a trade. I could see either approach being good for the Cubs long-term, depending on the dollars/years in the extension, or the prospects/players in the trade.

  • Sinnycal

    At this point, with the contracts being dished out around the league, I think you’d have to get a ridiculously good prospect package to outweigh the benefit of potentially locking him down at below market value for a #1 starter.

  • Cys_av8r

    Love the kid, but my fears are related to him being a headcase….I seem to remember another talented starter who liked to blow up and throw things around all the time…

    • DocPWimsey

      I can think of quite a few talented starters like that, who wound up with plaques in Cooperstown to boot.

    • LWeb23

      Alright, he had one incident last week. Not to mention that the incident did not effect his play when he went out there next inning.

      • ty

        lweb–Matt went really nuts again yesterday–Carrie and a few others were witness and if Z had done it–it would be publicized more. He is wound tight–but after what occured in the 9th. I do not blame him. I was an athlete with a temper but under control–Matt may be skirting the edge of out of control. If he can get his bunting and fielding down he will feel better about himself. The Cubs have a psychologist that works fulltime–spends a week with each team rotating through the minors–is on the field during batting practice and is young enough to bond with the guys. He has been working for Cubs since Rickets family purchase–supposebly a family friend. He hits fungoes so appears to have had athletic background. Matt*s overt reactions won*t be overlooked.

        • LWeb23

          I completely agree with you that he really did go nuts, but it was ONE incident. And it did not effect his play. Not something to worry about. If it happens 1-2 more times this year, then I’ll raise an eyebrow. But comparing him to Zambrano is just flat out silly.

        • Cubbie Blues

          Read something on his blowup that he had yesterday. He was alone and was letting out the frustration and some of the press walked in on him. He immediately apologized.

          • hansman1982

            I am actually pissed that Sullivan reported this. Seriously, trying to make a mountain out of a carbon atom. The dude was doing it in private. Sounds like someone trying to report something to look important.

            • EQ76

              funny… Bo Jackson gets mad back in the day and breaks a forest worth of bats and we all think it’s cool, players now-a-days get upset, in private, and these reporters act like the dude is a head case.. I think it’s great for players to be hard on themselves.. in high school and college, if I gave up a HR or some runs, it would flat out piss me off.. nothing wrong with having emotion. Our media needs to grow some balls and quit, like Hansman says, “making a mountain out of a carbon atom”.

          • DocPWimsey

            Lots of HoF pitchers destroyed a lot of water coolers and drinking fountains in their days. Of course, as bad as Garza is with a bat, this might not be an appropriate outlet for him…..

    • SirCub

      No doubt, he is full of energy, but he seems to turn most of that into positive energy. When he does have a burst of negative energy, he doesn’t let it affect the game or his team mates. Big difference between him and that other guy you’re referring to.

      • LWeb23

        Exactly. Every human being can be emotional. Some let it effect them (Big Z), some don’t let it effect them (Garza).

    • FromFenwayPahk

      Starters seem prone to behavior outside the norm. Bird Fidrych, Oil Can Boyd, etc. That might be part of what makes them successful. (No one knows what they’ll do (or throw) next.) Or maybe its because the talent required is so rare that odd behavior is tolerated more when it appears (so they might actually represent what is ‘average’ human behavior!).

      This quote, ‘‘Anytime you’re contemplating significant personnel moves, you have to look at the organization as a whole and where you’re going,’’ worries me because it feels like pre-trade language, and I want an extension for Garza.

      Garza’s talent is rare. Theo knows this though. He is a tough negotiator, especially in-season.

      • Cubbie Blues

        Or, Theo is trying to leverage the teams position for future contract talks with Garza.

    • rcleven

      There is a difference between Z’s blow-ups and Garza’s. Z directed his anger at his team mates. Garza’s is directed at himself.

      • Earl Cunningham

        Exactly, big difference. He isn’t out there staring down his teammates after an error or swinging at them in the dugout. Until then it’s a non issue for me.

    • Diesel

      You also never heard stories of that person encouraging his team mates in the game and the younger guys on the bench to stand up and cheer on their team.  That is a huge difference between him and Garza.

  • Matt

    The difference with Garza is how he did it. He was obviously mad at himself, but he finished the inning without doing anything, got on himself in the dugout (without bringing anyone else into it), got it all out, and didn’t take any of it back on the field with him. That is how Zambrano should have always dealt with his anger.

  • Webb

    The prospect of trading Garza reminds me of the Sebathia and Santana deals. The Bleacher Report evaluated the later trade in March:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1099464-reexaming-the-johan-santana-trade-how-each-prospect-has-fared-since-the-deal

    Neither the Indians or Twins received impact value for pitchers with far better track records than Garza when they were traded. Maybe this is just a healthy reminder of how easy it is to miss on prospects.

    • TWC

      BleacherReport?  What in the everliving hell is BleacherReport?

      • Cubs Dude

        Bleacher report is absolutely worthless. It is just a bunch of everyday people guessing and making up scenarios.

        • ty

          Cubs Dude–wrong two kemo sabe–Most of us are genuises.

          • Cubs Dude

            A lot of peeps on this site know their stuff, but I can also think of quite a few who seem to be a little out there… But I hear ya.

            • Richard Nose

              Damn that site makes me have to shit and vommit at the same time. I read an article (or whatever the fuck those things are they produce) title something like “Nebraska’s Dream Schedule”. It was one of their fucked up slideshows listing some ‘writers’ ideal schedule of football opponents or something (Mizzou, Oklahoma, Iowa, Texas, etc). My mind was blown. I had no idea what the point of this ‘dream schedule’ was or the fuck would care to look at or think about something like that.

        • Webb

          All it takes is an everyday person to realize the lack of value both clubs received for Cy Young caliber pitching.

    • WGNstatic

      Now, the talent going to Cleveland and Minnesota did not pan out. That said, I am not sure that means they were bad trades though.

      The question to ask is this: Would the two draft picks that would have been picked up in compensation when CC or Santana left as Free Agents have been more likely to succeed than the guys brought in via trade?

    • EvenBetterNews

      Like Theo has said it comes down to who is wrong less. The Sabathia rental didn’t work out horribly for Cleveland. The Teixera rental didn’t work out bad for Texas. It comes down to supply and demand as well as scouting. If you trust your scouts and feel you get a good deal, you take it. Everyone could find an example of a good and bad trade. The game has been around for a while.

    • nkniacc13

      The difference in both of those deals is that they had to trade them or lose them for draft picks because they couldn’t afford to sign them

  • ETS

    I tend to lean towards extending rather than trading. Top of the rotation guys are very hard to acquire. But, if the package is big enough….

    I’m still thinking the cubs will do some interesting stuff next off season. Our payroll is down and several big name pitchers (and some not-as-big-of-names but still quality pitchers) will be FAs.

    • Spencer

      Well, that would require the front office to express an interest in free agency.

      • ETS

        You don’t think they will go after free agents next off season?

      • WGNstatic

        Free agents are big purchases, that need to be made at the right time. To imply that Theo Epstein won’t go after a free agent is just ridiculous. There is simply no way that he would have taken the Cubs job if he didn’t know that there would be sufficient funds to be competitive, which requires signing free agents. That said, you need to have a framework in which those guys can succeed.

        There is certainly room for debate as to whether these guys should have made the moves they did this offseason, or if they should have made more. However, to imply that the Cubs will not be in on big $$ free agents in the future is silly.

        • Kyle

          Are you quite sure it’s silly?

          For one thing, the Cubs total baseball expenditures appear to have shrunk by quite a bit this year.

          2011: $130 in MLB payroll + $8million in IFA + $12 million in the draft

          2012: About $110 million in MLB payroll (including guys like Wood and Wells in the minors, and Zambrano in Florida) + ??? in IFA + $8 million in draft allotment from MLB.

          We don’t have the final IFA totals yet, of course, but my educated guess is that even with signing bonuses to Soler and Concepcion, it comes in around $12-15 million. And that’s assuming we land Soler.

          So if we take that as $15 million, that’s still $17 million that mysteriously disappeared from baseball expenditures. Sure, some of that is going to revamping the organization’s technilogical infrastructure, but that’s a six-figure project and is an order of magnitude short of explaining where the money is going.

          Sure, maybe this is a one-year blip. But I think it’s plausible to wonder if it’s not, and if this mid-market spending is the new Cubs norm.

          For one thing, Ricketts has talked repeatedly about wanting a heavily homegrown team, which also happens to mean a relatively cheap team.

          For another, Epstein has a dismal history with big-name free agents. Isn’t it possible part of the reason the Cubs job appealed to him was an owner who would allow him to sit out the big biddings?

          For a third, attendance is going to suffer this year. It was always starting to drop in recent years from the bad results, and this year the number of empty seats at Wrigley has been extremely noticeable.

          Maybe all is well and the Ricketts have all the money to spend that they need. But the smoke is starting to gather that maybe the money isn’t going to be there like it was under the Tribune Co.

          • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

            I know you would have loved for the Cubs to spend every penny possible on trying to turn this 70 win team into a .500 team with the non-zero chance that everything clicks and those 81 wins luck into 87 and a wild card birth, but just because spending is down this season doesn’t mean it’s the new way of life for the team.
            There was nothing Theo WANTED to spend that money on that was in the best long term interests of the franchise.
            When that player does come up, I have exactly ZERO reservations or fears that the Cubs will stay away because they have suddenly changed into a team that won’t ever spend on free agents.

            • Kyle

              I’m glad you are so utterly, completely confident. I don’t place any weight on your confidence, but I’m happy for you that you have it.

              • Joe

                One year does not equal a pattern. Not saying you must be wrong, but you’re using a single case as evidence of future events. Hence, it’s easier for folks who disagree with you to say you’re wrong.

                That said, I think you’re wrong. ;-)

                • Kyle

                  I’m not using a single case as evidence that it’s true. I’m using a single case of evidence that it’s possible. We don’t know exactly what Ricketts and Epstein are thinking, and their actions have left the future open to multiple possibilities.

                  • Joe

                    Agreed.

          • David

            I’ve seen mention of Rickett’s comments about wanting a more home-grown approach, and here you seem to equate it with him wanting to go cheap. Shouldn’t every team prefer to develop their own players, and have a strong pipeline of talent continually coming up? Whether those players wind up on your team or traded for needs, isn’t that exactly what they should want to be doing?

            Maybe you would’ve prefer him to say that he doesn’t really care about player development, etc., they’ll just continue to buy players after their peak, but that seems to me to be how the organization got to this point to begin with.

            • Kyle

              Sure. But not only does every team want to expand player development, every team promises to do it. There are fans of about two-dozen teams right now drooling over their prospects the way we drool over ours. The Cubs should be able to take advantage of their status big-market fish in a small-market division.

              So far, Epstein hasn’t done anything that Andy MacPhail didn’t do, right down to spending significantly more money on scouting and development.

              There seems to be the assumption that the Cubs slashed payroll because they want to go homegrown and then add big-name free agents later.

              That’s certainly possible. But I think it’s equally possible that they slashed payroll because that’s simply going to be how it is for the forseeable future.

              Everyone’s assuming we’re getting the Boston model. And I hope that’s the case. But so far, I haven’t seen anything that disproves the idea that we might be getting the Cincinnati Reds’ model.

              • hansman1982

                I like how everyone thinks we are a big market team. Based on previous year’s payrolls I think we are more of a mid-major market. While we should always have payrolls bigger than the Cards, Reds, Brewers, etc… I just don’t think the money is there yet for us to have a truly big market payroll ($150M+ year in and year out). I sincerely think that $130M is the top end of a comfortable payroll for the Cubs with the current media contract and stadium endorsements.

                • Kyle

                  http://www.sporcle.com/games/DzPshr13/mlbtvmarket

                  The Cubs may have self-inflicted limitations on revenues, but the market is most definitely big.

                  • hansman1982

                    The Cubs have the market of Boston but with the media contract of the Iowa Cubs. Just because there are eleventy bajillion people living somewhere doesn’t mean they are raking in the dough.

                    Mexico City has 9M people, but thanks to their per capita income, they would be more like a mid-market team. Everywhere I have seen puts Cubs revenues at $20M under most of the big market teams, at a minimum. You get a new media contract and you will see payroll around $150M. Just because Ricketts is rich and the team is in Chicago, doesn’t mean we have the money to get the payroll there now.

                    Edit: Media revenues

                  • SirCub

                    PS- I love that you used Sporcle as a reference.

                • SirCub

                  Agreed. I think a Cubs network and a revamped Wrigley makes the Cubs a big-market team immediately.

          • Drew

            Kyle- In regards to Theo having zero success with big-name free agents-
            I know he struck out in recent years, (Lackey, Crawford, Dice-K) but without looking it up, I thought he did a pretty good job before that. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head:
            – Bill Mueller (admittedly not a “big name”, but a solid signing)
            – Adrian Beltre
            – David Ortiz
            – Hideki (dont call me Irabu) Okaijima
            – Mike Timlin
            – Keith Foulke (2004; after that, not good)
            – JD Drew (Rough 2007, but solid for next 3

            None, with the exception of Ortiz, are “blockbusters”, but most were certainly solid signings, right?

            • Kyle

              He has had a lot of success scouring the scrap heap, mostly in his early years in Boston. That’s why I said “big-name free agents.”

          • nkniacc13

            wait the Cubs have signed Soler?

            • Kyle

              No. I just included the possibility to make sure it was covered.

              • nkniacc13

                When he gets signed is another issue since the new CBA limits the amount that teams can spend

    • Frank

      I agree–I lean toward extending as well–partly because a great prospect is just that–a prospect. And they miss at least as often as they hit.

    • Kyle

      Several of the big-name pitchers who will be FAs have already been locked up by their clubs. All that’s really left for top-flight pitchers are Hamels and Grienke. Good luck fighting off every big market team in the league for those two.

  • Cubs Dude

    From the sounds of it, Garza is wanting a no-trade clause. I really hope the Cubs don’t allow that.

    • wvcubsfan

      Why are folks always making such a huge deal over not trade clauses? You do realize that if he was signed to an extension the NTC would only affect one year of his extended contract right?

      • Cubs Dude

        No, I did not know that a no trade was only good for one year if that player is extended… That is new to me. My bad if that is true.

        • wvcubsfan

          After the first year of the extension he would qualify for 10/5 rights so he would have the same rights because of that whether he had one in the contract or not.

          • Cubs Dude

            OK, well I have definitely read about it as being a hangup in a couple places. Good to know. Sign his ass already!

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        Maybe I’m confused. What do you mean?

        • wvcubsfan

          Me? If Garza is extended and gets a NTC, the only year it really matters is the first year of the extended contract, because after that year he would have gained 10/5 rights.

          • Still Love the Cubs

            Um…maybe my math is wrong, but I don’t think he will have 10 years in the big leagues by then. That is a ways out for him I think

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            That’s what I wasn’t understanding – Garza isn’t going to have 10 years of service time for another five years. The NTC would matter quite a bit.

            • nkniacc13

              What has been Theo’s and Jed’s policy on NTC?

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                They aren’t interested in giving them out.

                • nkniacc13

                  Then I don’t see that happening for Garza then. I wonder if there is an extention if there is a partial NTC that allows the Cubs to trade him to all but 5 or 10 teams with Garza getting to name those teams every winter

            • drew

              Not to mention hes pitched a year and 2 weeks with his current team, so we’re even further away from the “5” part.

              Oops, didnt see Bretts post about him only having 5 years of service time. Still a long way off though!

  • Steve

    I say extend him and lets add as we can with whats availalble. What do you want from a pitching prospect ? For them to turn out to be just like Garza. Will we be good enought to compete before his extension expires is the question. (Yeah i know, Im realy smart eh? )
    Roll the dice people…Its all a crap shoot.

  • Wrigley11

    I’m sure some of you have seen this, but this was on FanGraphs this morning

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/matt-garza-legitimate-number-one-starter/

    Honestly, unless the Cubs get blown away by the Blue Jays, I think it makes more sense to hang onto Garza. There are definitely some FAs this offseason that fit into “entering their prime” category, and although I think 2014 is a more realistic year to begin to contend, a 5 year deal for someone like Grienke or Hamels might be a smart risk. a 1,2 of Hamels, Garza or Garza, Grienke is a pretty good front rotation. It will be interesting to see what happens around June/July with this team, as well as this offseason.

    • Drew

      Due to the severity of Grienke’s Anxiety disorder, I doubt we see him as a Cub.

      • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

        And what exactly is the severity of it?

      • ETS

        Or due to his (albeit limited) career #’s in Wrigley. ;)

    • rcleven

      Grienke would be eaten alive in big city atmosphere . He barely survived KC. He is in a good situation where he is with the Brewers. Smaller market less pressure.

  • johnbres2

    I disagree that the team looks crummy. I am quite happy with the Cubs so far, as they have exceeded my expectations. There has been excellent starting pitching, some decent hitting (albeit mostly singles), better defence (excepting when there are two outs in the 9th of victories), and more aggressive baserunning. The record could easily be 4-3 instead of 2-5. I am enjoying watching them play. Garza? I would prefer to look at him as part of the future, at 28.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I agree with all of that – I was referring to the external perception that the team is crummy, and to Theo buying into (or not buying into, as is the case) it.

  • KA

    The cubs should sign Garza to a multi-year extension before these salaries get way out of control.

  • Cheryl

    It may make sense to hang on to Garza but he may not want to stay with a clubthat is thinking rebuilding and acting accordingly. I wouldn’t be surorised if he has his sights set on the Yankees or another team.

  • KA

    How long do you think the Cubs will be in a rebuilding mode? Anything longer than this year and a lot of Cub fans will start to get impatient.

    • Joe

      A lot of folks are hoping we’ll have a shot at the postseason next year, but the more sober minds seem to be saying 2014 is likely the better year. Hence, the willingness to consider trading Garza — by the time we’re really going for it, he’ll be aging and who knows what else.

      If we lock him up, I think we’ve got a shot at a wild card next year. If we trade him, I think 2013 will be an improved year of rebuilding, with more BJax.

  • Joshua Edwards

    One of these things will happen:
    1. Cubs sign Garza to a fair market-value extension
    2. Cubs trade Garza for a bevy of prospects/players

    None of these things will happen:
    1. Garza overpaid by Cubs
    2. Garza traded for weak prospects/players

    Value no matter what.

    • ty

      Garza may be traded quickly. Two great games but bunting,fielding, and throwing defenicies of some magnitude. This guy is about 2 seconds away from the dreaded Steve Blass disease and Theo knows it. Hopefully the other G.M.*s have their heads in Hendry sand and we can score big before it* too late.

      • apostrophe

        why do you hate me?

        • Upvote

          haha

  • Nick Nesler

    I think a lot of this depends on shark, if garza ends up being our only top of the rotation guy then I think we trade for a haul. If shark ends up being legit then you have someone to pair him with and your not to far away from a pretty good rotation.

    • Joe

      I think that’s a valid argument. That thought was percolating in my brain recently, too.

  • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

    TRADE.
    The Cubs won’t win the WS this year. Probably won’t have a shot next year either.
    I want a pitcher who will be as good or better in 2014 than they are now. Garza will not be as good in 2014 as he is now.

    • Kyle

      What if no one offers you such a pitcher?

      • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

        Take best offer…

        • bricky9

          I offer a bag of marbles and a rusty bicycle chain

  • Keep Dreaming

    Ever get the feeling that Theo Epstein likes to hear himself talk? I would rather see the Cubs win than hear this guy talk about the art of trades . Simple Translation: Garza at the moment is the Cubs best pitcher and Garza dictates where he will play in the future. Sure the Cubs may trade him and they will! Given Garza talents and proven ability in the show he will bolt to a team not only willing to pay him the Almighty dollar but he will pick a contending team once everything is said and done and Theo – well, he will talk about …. something

  • bricky9

    It looks like the rain is pushing out of St. Louis. GAME TIME!!!!!

  • Cub Gone Wild

    I agree that Garza should be extended. We have nothing in our system that can replace him. Trey McNutt ??? Ain’t betting the farm on that… Even if we got a very top of the line prospect pitcher there is no gaurantee. We have the Bird in the Hand. IMO if we traded him it would set the Cubs back even further in terms of shut down type starter on the MLB roster. I believe Theo needs to continue developing the MLB rotation via Free Agency. I would hope that he can make some minor league trades where we have some depth at the lower levels for some pitching talent that we can develop. Trading MLB players isn’t necessarily the path to rebuilding the farm. Not much of what we have at the ML is all that valuable with regard to position players. Soto, Soriano and Byrd won’t return anything to get all jizzed up over. Maybe Soto …. Maybe a Szurcur (no i didn’t spell that right) could get a nice pitching prospect in trade. If we keep Garza, Dempster (resign cheap and move down in the rotation), Shark works out, we get lucky with Volstad we are looking for 1 really good starter and then look at potential upgrades to Volstad possibly.

  • Cub Gone Wild

    I’m a happy guy today. On my way to a new career after 30 years in my old one. Passed my state board exams for my own insurance business. As soon as my wife gets home from work she is driving me to our favorite sports bar and I am going to get shmammered tonight. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Haven’t studied that hard for anything since Christ was Corporal. Too much non sense to have to remember. Like taking Calculus in college. Never needed that bullshit cluttering my brain for half my life. Oh Well… I’m officially among the ranks of the Self Employed. Yee Ha

    • ty

      Congrats cub gone wild—the american dream!

      • Frank

        Congratulations!

    • drew

      Welcome to the industry!

  • Cubs Dude

    Thanks Walker Texas Ranger for holding the fort down during the rain delay. Great Job Chuck, I missed the mullett.

  • Cub Gone Wild

    I think Theo needs to let his hair grow out to about shoulder length and start smoking blunts… Those kids talk a lot of bullshit too when they are high as hell. Look the part… He is rich now… he doesn’t have to look any better than Rickie Weeks.. :) does he stay up all night making mental notes on how to be as non-committal and vague as humanly possible.

    • Cubs Dude

      Theo is the ultimate politician. Anytime he talks up a player you can be sure that player is as good as gone. At lease he’s not saying Garza is great…

  • nkniacc13

    Im really going to be interested in seeing how many players the Cubs trade at the deadline/offseason for prospects

  • OHBearCub

    Thanks for kind words Drew, Frank and Ty… Cubs Win … yeeha

  • Cub Gone Wild

    Thanks for kind words Drew, Frank and Ty… Cubs Win… yeeha

  • Cub Gone Wild

    Shark fell asleep at the wheel but still a great bullpen effort to get the job done. Lets keep things rolling. Winning is contageous.. I hope

  • Dumpgobbler

    Stepping back and looking at the situation, I still think Garza should be traded. We’re not a very good team, but with a few very good minor league pieces, preferably pitchers, to go along with Rizzo, Jackson, Starlin, and Baez.. Now that looks like we have something going foward.

    I’d give it a couple months though. Garza looks like an Ace and I’m willing to bet a team will pile on top prospects for an ace.

  • Pingback: Aw Crap: I May Have Pissed Off Matt Garza (UPDATE: Hooray! I Didn’t) | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+