Quantcast

Another wrinkle in the trade deadline madness…

  • The competitive balance lottery (an added part of the Draft, which next year will give 12 additional picks after the first round to, essentially, small market teams and crappy teams (the Cubs will almost certainly never be eligible to receive a pick from the lottery)) is today (going on right now, actually), and it’s relevant to the Cubs’ trade doings for one reason: these particular picks are tradable. As soon as the lottery is over, some of the teams with whom the Cubs will be dealing might have just picked up an additional trade chip. Pretty great. There were early suggestions that picks that were traded would come with only half of their slot value (meaning, if the Cubs picked up a pick whose slot value was $1 million, they would have only $500K to spend for that pick). If true, this whole trading draft picks thing is a whole lot less compelling. After all, how attractive is the 35th pick if you can only spend $500K on him, while the 34th pick can get up to $1 million, and the 36th pick can get up to $950K? It’s still valuable, but not nearly as valuable as just getting the pick. I’ve been trying to find/get an answer on this one, but so far, no luck. No one else seems to be as interested in it as I am – which is a mistake. This is pretty important to the “maybe the Cubs are waiting to trade Dempster so they can get a draft pick” narrative. Scratch all that: I finally got an answer from BA’s Jim Callis, who’s the expert on this stuff. He says the halving of traded pick value was an early rumor, but one that he doesn’t see in any of his current documentation from the league. So, he’s guessing it didn’t actually come to fruition. If so, today’s lottery is of additional interest to the Cubs.
  • The 14 teams eligible to win a pick today (there will be 12 different winners of a pick) are the Arizona Diamondbacks, Baltimore Orioles, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals, Oakland Athletics, Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres, Tampa Bay Rays, Cincinnati Reds, Colorado Rockies, Miami Marlins, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals and the Detroit Tigers. Among them, all but the Padres, Rockies, and probably Brewers are theoretical trade partners.
  • ESPN’s David Schoenfield chatted, and, among the non-Ryan Dempster bits (which were covered earlier): (1) the Rangers have almost certainly contacted the Cubs about Matt Garza; (2) Bryan LaHair to the Reds makes sense, because LaHair can fill-in at first while Votto is out, and then move to the outfield when Votto returns (the Reds could use another bat in the outfield) – David DeJesus is, thus, also a good fit; (3) Schoenfield guesses that the Cubs would say yes to a Julio Teheran/Mike Minor for Matt Garza trade, but isn’t sure the Braves would (I’m not convinced the Cubs would say yes, but they probably would); (4) the Cubs can do better than Ryan Kalish for Ryan Dempster (ok, that’s a Ryan Dempster bit that I didn’t cover earlier); and (5) if the Cubs believe Darwin Barney is as good as his defensive metrics say he’s been this year, they’ll probably be keeping him long-term at second.
  • The Phillies are reportedly readying a six-year, $130ish million extension offer for Cole Hamels. He can’t turn that down, right? I don’t know which way I’m rooting on that one.
  • The Marlins could become sellers even after spending lavishly in the offseason. Although I’d rather the Marlins didn’t dilute the market for Cubs trade pieces, there would certainly be a bit of LOL-SchadenFish in them having to sell off already.
  • The Indians and White Sox, in addition to the Tigers, should be hard up for a pitching acquisition in the next couple weeks, says Jon Morosi.
  • The Tigers are still interested in picking up an upgrade at second base, says Jim Bowden, and that could be Darwin Barney, even if they don’t also get one of the Cubs’ pitchers. (That Bowden feature? It’s called “Bowden’s Bullets.” Harrumph.)
  • Bob Nightengale says the Red Sox and Marlins are discussing a Carl Crawford plus prospect for Hanley Ramirez and Heath Bell swap, which would be insane for so many reasons. I assume the prospect would have to be pretty good, given the money aspect.
  • cubs217

    So essentially every team in the NL central is eligible for these extra picks except the Cubs… sweet.

    • Dob2812

      Which only means that if and when the Cubs ever get their act together, they stand to have a massive financial advantage over every other team in the division.

  • David

    My first thought is Teheran/Minor for Garza is yes, please. I think they’d be two ML-ready, good-to-high upside starters that they could put into the rotation right away, and live with the growing pains for the next year and a half. Teheran’s numbers this year, though, are a bit of a concern. K’s down, H/9 up, HR allowed way up. If the scouts and medicals say that his arm and stuff are as good as ever, I think this would be a very good return. Ryan Kalish for Dempster, though, not so much.

  • MightyBear

    What’s really crazy is the Cardinals are part of that group. Are you kidding me? WTF?!

    • koyiehillsucks

      Agree, how do they cards fit that criteria?

      • beerhelps

        Small market …. ya, its dumb as hell

        • North Side Irish

          St. Louis is one of the 10 smallest markets…I guess size does matter.

          I’d be really annoyed if I were a Twins fan…the World Series champs get in the “competitive balance” draft but the team with the second worst record doesn’t?

          It also kills me that the Tigers get in with a Top 5 payroll. Some loophole about them getting revenue sharing money one year, so they’re in.

          • RoughRiider

            I don’t get the Diamondbacks being on the list. There are almost 4 million people in the Phoenix Metro Area.

          • ColoCubFan

            How can San Diego qualify and not the Twins??????????

    • ETS

      This times 1,000,000

    • JB88

      MLB missed the ball on this. The draft shouldn’t seek to reward successful teams, just ones that are unsuccessful, regardless of market size. If you win the WS, you should be ineligible for the competive balance draft for the next 5 years.

  • scorecardpaul

    Would the Cubs be eligible for these picks in the future if they move to a new ballpark in the burbs???

    • Tim

      The Cubs will not move away from Wrigley Field

  • Jonski

    Yeah that’s what I would do trade proven mlb pitching for a draft pick in next years draft that might see the Cubs big league roster in 4 or 5 years and even if its a prospect and the draft pick it just means we get a $hitt prospect!

    • MightyBear

      Better than watching Dempster pitch for the next 2.5 months on a team that wins 70 games and then leaves and we get bupkis.

      • Matty Ice

        Actually the Cubs would get a comp pick if he left after the season.

        • BD

          Because of that, couldn’t a team offer their lottery pick and a so-so prospect on the premise that it’s more than the Cubs would get if they kept him.

          IMO, just another reason to despise this lottery thing.

          • Scotti

            They can offer what they want but we don’t have to accept. If we have what the market desires then these teams have to compete against eachother. These teams getting extra picks just ADD more commodities to the trade market. That is good for the Cubs!

        • MightyBear

          Only if they offer him arbitration, which they won’t because he might accept.

          • Matty Ice

            Why wouldn’t they offer him a qualifying offer? If he did accept, which he probably wouldn’t, you have a proven veteran who everyone in the clubhouse loves for 12.5 mil and if they don’t compete next year, then the whole trade dance starts again.

            • MightyBear

              Because they don’t want to spend 12.5 mil on a 37 year old pitcher. What if his arm blows out in March? How’s the dance next year then?

              • Edwin

                What if his arm blows out during his next start? Offering arbitration is worth the risk. Also, Demspter is only 35. He’d be 36 next year come May.

                • MightyBear

                  Who cares because he’ll be gone before his next start.

                  • Matty Ice

                    Agreed, but you were wrong in your statement that they would get nothing if they kept him.

                    • MightyBear

                      Ok. If the Cubs keep Dempster (which they won’t) and if they offer him arbitration (which they won’t) and if he declines (which he might not), they will get compensation. You are correct sir.

            • Edwin

              I totally agree. I think the odds of him accepting arbitration are pretty low anyways, since he could probably get more garaunteed money on the market. He’ll get a 2 or 3 year deal easy.

              • Scotti

                Only if he continues at a plus pace. If he slumps then he gets one-year offers with an option.

    • chirogerg

      How many times do people have to say this before everyone realizes draft picks are untradeable?

      • TWC

        Except there are tradable draft picks, which you obviously know because you read the article above.

        • Scotti

          Why would anyone read what Brett writes? I just read the articles if it’s time for a nap. Zzzzzzzz… ;-)

      • ncsujuri

        OH SNAP, what TWC said.

  • North Side Irish

    What Bowden actually says is that the Tigers would “like to get Darwin Barney from the Cubs for a mid-level prospect”. I’m sure they would, but I would like to think the Cubs could get more than that for him. If nothing else, it seems like he could be a good sweetener on a deal. But for a mid-level prospect, I’d rather keep Barney as a cheap option.

    • cubs217

      I would like to marry Stacey Keibler, just dont think that is likely either. The Cubs better not trade Barney for a mid-level prospect, he has more value to them right now than that.

      • David

        Mmm… Stacey Keibler…

    • TonyP

      What Bowden actually says is that the Tigers would “like to get Darwin Barney from the Cubs for a mid-level prospect”. That might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!!! Why on earth would we trade Barney for a mid-level prospect? A mid level prospect has a 50/50 chance of turning into Barney. Freaking stupid.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I didn’t mention the mid-level prospect bit for the very reason you said – the idea that the Cubs would dump Barney in a one-for-one deal involving a blah prospect is nuts.

  • leroy k.

    Just say

    NO

    to trading Barney.

    • ETS

      Trade him while his value is still high. He is good defensively but has no bat. We have several (possible) middle infielders that could man second both short and long term.

  • ncsujuri

    In what world are the Tigers not either a major-market or a good team and thus qualify to maybe win one of these picks?

  • cubzforlife

    Gotta remember Ricketts loves Barney. Not gonna trade him just to trade him.

  • Joker

    So like many of us suspected in the off season, it appears that the Hanley Ramirez experience in south Florida has gone south. I’m not saying that we NEED him, but what would it take to GET him??? Would we have enough? Could we see Garza going to Miamia (along with peripheral players either way – to balance things out like talent, depth, control, cost). Would this be worth exploring for the front office?

    I know it might be crazy talk since we have a potential young Hanley in Castro, but Hanley himself is still young. No matter who plays where, Starlin and Hanley would make a formidable left side of the infield. They might lack in concentration, but I think the right manager fixes those issues.

    • King Jeff

      Hanley has really bottomed out the last two seasons at the plate. I’m not sure chasing a .250 hitter with a huge contract is a good move at this point.

      • Joker

        Well, he is 28 and should conceivably be in the prime of his career. Last year has got to be an aberration. This year’s average is not great at .250 but he already has 14 HR/47 RBI and 13 SB. Slash line is .249/.326/.437 which just ain’t that bad considering he’s bottomed out. Even with his struggles, his WAR is 1.6.

        I guess I just believe that Hanley is a product of his enviroment and this current performance is not indicative of his talent. He’s a lottery ticket I think I would buy if offered the chance. Instead of a $1 scratch off, he’s a $10,000 a hand poker bet.

        • Cyranojoe

          No. No more expensive lottery tickets. That was the goal with Soriano’s crazy contract, remember?

          No, now we cash in a bunch of cheap tickets (i.e., prospects) and, when we’re ready to hit the playoffs, buy up some known-value FAs.

  • oswego chris

    barney has grown on me…I have yet to see a prospect that really excites me about Garza…I am just throwing this out there…not sure how I feel would it be better

    A. to trade Garza now for prospects avoiding a drop in performance or injury

    B. keep him, and if we are not competitivein 2013, trade him at next years deadline(possibly for less) or get the draft pick comp when he leaves as a free agent….

    I still need to be wowed….

    • Joker

      I agree on both fronts, OC. Barney has really developed into a favorite of mine – love the D, the personality and class, the approach to the game. He seems to want to get better and his hitting this year is a direct result of his efforts. Sure, we’d all love a superstart second baseman, but I think Barney is a solid starter for the next 5 years if we just let him be him.

      As for Garza, we will never get “just the right deal”. But I do trust the FO to just not give him away either. We all just need to learn patience.

    • JB88

      Agree. You don’t build around a Darwin Barney, but he is a nice cheap piece to have while you do build a contender. Unless you can fleece a team who wants Barney, I’d rather hold onto him.

    • Pete

      Agree on Garza. And I had a thought last night – today, in July 2012, would you keep Garza (and Rosscup) or take back Archer et al.? I’d still keep Garza. Which is my pause for concern on trading him for prospects.

      • Edwin

        Archer et al. Easily.

        • Jack Weiland

          Based on …?

          The return on trading Garza is almost guaranteed to be better than the current versions of Chris Archer, Hak Ju Lee, Robinson Chirinos, Sam Fuld and Brandon Guyer. Only one of those guys was a consensus Top 100 prospect before this season (Lee) and his value is down significantly.

          • Edwin

            Lee is ranked 47th on Baseball America’s top 50 midseason prospect list. Archer has struggled, but he’s currently a starter for the Rays. If Archer were in the Cubs system he’d easily be the top pitching prospect.

            Garza has lost value since the trade. While his performance has been better than expected, he’s now older, more expensive, and has less years of control. He’s probably reached his peak value, and his skill set will start to slowly decline. I think Garza has lost more value over the course of the trade than the other pieces in the trade.

            • T Wags

              I doubt it. I can almost guarantee you that if we do in fact trade Garza, we would all rather keep the prospects we get for him than trade those prospects for Archer, Lee, etc…

            • Jack Weiland

              And Lee is having a bad season. He’s 47th mostly because he can play short (one of the few areas the Cubs don’t have a need, currently) and because he had some small sample success with his bat last year at AA. Archer’s value has plummeted. No one else in that deal has done much outside of a modest run of success as an injury fill-in/superhero by Sam Fuld.

              The Cubs will almost certainly do better than one Top 50 prospect when they flip Garza this year, and I don’t think it’s a given AT ALL that he has less value now than then. In fact I think he has more. He was REALLY excellent last year, and a lot of people thought he would struggle in Wrigley (myself included). Saying you’d take that “easily” strikes me as really, really, really, really, REALLY crazy. It would be tough to trade Garza right now and get a worse return than the #47 prospect (by one publication) whose value is unquestionably down from this time last year.

              • Edwin

                That’s fine. We obviously value Garza differently, as well as prospects.

        • T Wags

          Really? What have any of them done for the Rays to this point? Except for Superman Sam Fuld’s 15 minutes of fame, nothing. Granted, Archer and Lee still have a chance to be something, but were set at shortstop(obviously) and Archer’s control issues are a red flag for me. That group will never amout to being the cat’s pajamas. Never.

      • Oswego chris

        We are going to be lucky to get a pitching prospect who in four years will be as good as Matt Garza….

        • Jack Weiland

          Definitely. But that’s the game. And that doesn’t change the need to trade Garza in order to give this franchise it’s best chance to win a World Series.

        • hansman1982

          but in 4 years will Matt Garza be as good as that prospect?

          • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

            Exactly…and multiple prospects at that.

    • T Wags

      I was actually contemplating this same thought last night. All of the interest Dempster is garnering, along with some of the whispers of possible returns we could expect for him as just a rental player, has me thinking that if we don’t get WOW offer on Garza we should keep him till at least next July. With the way this team is playing right now(well, really since RizzOMG came to save the day(sample sizes be damned!), and the progress of guys like Vitters, Barney, and Soriano(defensively), why not wait to see if we can compete next year? With a couple of DeJesus-like signings this winter and possibly another rotation arm we could be a pretty solid team and surprise next year. If were out of it next July then trade Garza as a rental and we’ll know we gave it our best shot.

      My opinion on this idea may vary depending on what we recieve for Demp but I don’t think it’s a bad option at all. Just one of way too many thoughts during this lovely time of year. Keep up the great coverage Brett!

  • North Side Irish

    First round of comp picks:

    Comp Round A order: 1. Royals 2. Pirates 3. Dbacks 4. Orioles 5. Reds 6. Marlins

    Can’t complain too much about those in terms of market size…but two NLC teams in there.

    • Jonski

      Well the Indians and Tigers are at the bottom of group B so maybe we can put to rest trying to get a pick unless we deal with Royals or somebody in group A

      • scorecardpaul

        why do we have toput it to rest. We can still trade for a pick from those teams.

        • Jonski

          Well if people can’t figure out why trading Dempster for a shit prospect and a a 3 round pick when you have half the league wanting him I have nothing to say!

          • scorecardpaul

            who said we were wanting to trade Dempster for a a shit prospect and a 3rd round pick. You are the only one arguing with yourself. You said… Well the Indians and Tigers are at the bottom of group B so maybe we can put to rest trying to get a pick unless we deal with Royals or somebody in group A

            • Jonski

              Dealing with Royals would be Garza not Dempster and if you look at were that pick is it would be before the 3rd round now add that with Jim Calis saying next years draft is weak you do the math.So lets see Dempster is f/a so we just give him away right let him pitch this year out and sign a friendly contract.This shit about him being a free agent at seasons end so we have to get something is bullshit I say call teams bluff unless you want the team to be rebuilding 10 years from now.

  • T Wags

    Does anybody think Demp + LaHair + Camp to the Dodgers for Zach Lee + Chris Reed is a reasonable deal? Is Lahair worth that much? The Dodgers could definitely use him but it’s just so hard to pin a value on him.

    • JB88

      I think that is too much to give up for Lee & Reed. That deal might be palatable if it were Demp and LaHair for Lee and Reed. But I think that Camp can get you something meaningful without needing to be a throw in for getting a better quality prospect. IOW and IMO, adding LaHair should net you Lee and Reed.

      • T Wags

        That is what i was originally thinking too. It’s just hard to gauge whether teams value LaHair at the same level we do. I think that would be a great trade for both sides.

    • PJ

      Three major leaguers for two prospects? The math does not work for me. Granted there may be huge upside with the prospects, but there was huge upside with Jason Dubois, Yorkis Perez and Calvin Schiraldi. It seems to me if you are trading away proven major league players (though the jury still may be out on LaHair) for prospects, there should be more prospects coming back in return – even if one of the major leaguers is a rental player.

  • calicubsfan007

    I am just glad we weren’t the team that traded away Melky Cabrera for Jonathan Sanchez, ugh… Wouldn’t want to be the Royals GM right now…

  • Serious Cubs Fan

    I really appreciate everything dempster has done for us but he is really boning us by making it known he wants to be with the dodgers. That prevents the dodgers from ponying up big time to get him. It just disappointing. I wish he would come out wit a statement saying something like, “I really don’t care I go to play, I just want the cubs to get a good deal for me or else I will not leave.” Something like that to help help balance out the leverage of power in a trade and to let any team know they are still in the game.

    • JoeyCollins

      I thought he had said that all he wanted was to help the team and the best way he could do that was to raise his trade value so the cubs get a good return. I’m pretty sure all the reports about where he would like to go are from other sources. I dont think he’s spoken publically at all about any particular team.

  • donnie kessinger

    I wonder if Dempster + Barney would net Jacob Turner + others? I too would hate to lose Barney. He has great intangibles – oops, not suppose to use that unscientific word on this web site.

    • Njriv

      (LOL!!)

  • http://bleachernation.com someday…2015?

    So assuming all the rumors play out and Dempsters desire plays out would Reed and Gould get Dempster or would that be too much??

  • http://bleachernation.com someday…2015?

    http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2012071835144906/ I feel bad for the Jays. If the Jays give up this year that hurts the trade market a bit. Maybe these injuries will make the Jays urgent to go get someone to help out while Lauwrie and Bautista are out(I doubt that.)

  • Stugots2face

    Garza, Barney, Vitters for Castellanos and Turner.
    Dempster straight up for Lee are the latest rumors.

    • chirogerg

      where’d you read that?

      • ncsujuri

        On his computer screen after he typed it. Neither are happening…

        • chirogerg

          that was my guess too

    • http://bleachernation.com someday…2015?

      I would do the Garza trade if there is another prospect coming back. You would be trading 2 proven major leaguers and one AAA all star for 2 guys who have never done anything of significance in the Major Leagues. I know Castellanos and Turner have a ton of upside but thats not enough for Garza, Barney and Vitters. Take Vitters out of that deal and then I think it’s fair.

    • hansman1982

      I would do both of those in a heartbeat. That would give us 6 prospects in the top 50 and 8-10 in the top 100 plus young superstuds in Rizzo and Castro.

      • Turn Two

        I would do them both in a heartbeat as well, only I have never heard those rumors? All I have heard about Detroit is that they can’t wait for Castellanos to get in their major league lineup and that the Dodgers are slowly falling out of the running because Lee is too much.

  • MightyBear

    No way the Dodgers trade Lee for Dempster straight up.

    • PJ

      If the Dodgers want a boost to win this year they do. A veteran having a career year with WS and playoff experience who is a great clubhouse influence for an unproven minor league arm. Not sure why they wouldn’t. Kershaw, Dempster and Billingsly would match up well against any of the other teams in the division. If Lee is that valuable to them at this time, maybe they should bring him up and insert him into the rotation. Meanwhile we’ll watch Demp break Hershiser’s record in Wrigley (wishful thinking I know).

      • nkniacc13

        billingsley has an elbow issue

      • David

        Not sure I’d bring up the post-season experience, though.

        • PJ

          Experience – not success. Actually it was my mistake. I was thinking he was part of the Marlins ’03 WS team but just checked the stats and found I was mistaken. He was hurt and floundering with the Reds at the time.

  • thejackal

    ya costellanos is untouchable and id personally drive demp to l.a myself sinnging kumbayah all the way

  • Cub Gone Wild

    The Tigers are completely out of their minds.

    Just got this off of MLB Trade Rumors:

    The Tigers are seeking a second base upgrade and would like to acquire Darwin Barney from the Cubs for a mid-level prospect. ( Do they think we are FLIPPING STUPID) If I’m Theo and they call me with that BS. I tell them to lose my phone number.

    Then I see the Garza, Barney and Vitters for Turner and Castellanos. NO WAY. Somebody needs to get their head out of their A**. A proven Major League starting pitcher and a proven Major League second baseman and a AAA prospect who is still very young for 2 unproven Minor Leaguers. NO WAY. If that happens I become a REDS fan. I will be pissed for life. I live in Dayton and as much as I hate the REDS I will start following them.

    • falselife

      I’m on the fence regarding Barney.

      The problem is that he is a more valuable commodity to us than any other team, at least it appears that way.

      Barney is a great defensive infielder, you can’t really argue that point. He has good range, a great glove and rarely makes mental errors.

      The problems lies in the fact that he is a horrible hitter away from Wrigley. His OBP is right around .300 and his average is much closer to the Mendoza line. With that, I don’t think other teams will view him as anything other than an MLB glove with a AAA bat and A plate discipline. Now add to that his pattern of crashing in the second half of the season at the plate.

      I don’t see how we can move him for anything higher than a mid-level prospect. The only way Barney leaves town is if he is part of a package that nets a sizable return with Dempster or Garza. He is just more valuable to us than he would be to anyone else.

      • TWC

        “Now add to that his pattern of crashing in the second half of the season at the plate.”

        So what happened last season — his first — makes it a pattern? Really?
        I don’t disagree with much else of what you wrote, but this is pretty silly.

        • PJ

          I agree. Rookie season does not a pattern make. Plus, improvement re: plate discipline can be expected. Many players were free swingers in their early years and developed discipline in the years to come. Shawon Dunston is one that definitely comes to mind. Barney, however, considering he’ll never be a major power threat, needs to develop that a bit sooner to stick around.

        • falselife

          Sure it’s a pattern. It’s the entire sample size….ok. I’ll concede sensationalism there…

    • Patrick W.

      “If that happens I become a REDS fan.”

      Really? No you wouldn’t. For how long? Until one of the unproven prospects turn into an All Star? Until Vitters pans out to be a AAAA player and Barney can’t reach a 250/300/320 line?

      The point I’m making is that you can’t judge a trade like that until about 3 years after the deal at minimum. So, you’d abandon your favorite team for a team you “hate” because you believe your crystal ball is better than the people who get paid to make these decisions?

      This is an example of Cubs’ fans who present a very fickle nature to their fanaticism.

    • TWC

      “…[blah blah blah blather] If that happens I become a REDS fan. I will be pissed for life. I live in Dayton and as much as I hate the REDS I will start following them.”

      Right. Something something “door”, something something “ass”, something something “on your way out”.

  • Cub Gone Wild

    Plus this Turner kid got lit up like a Christmas Tree last night. We don’t need a guy who isn’t really ready for MLB. We don’t send a No.2 starter for that.

    • Njriv

      The Tigers have been known to rush their young pitchers and he was rushed through the Tigers system just like Rizzo was with the Padres. He needs more time in the majors and he is still pretty young so it won’t hurt his development, if the Cubs were to obtain him in a deal I’m sure he would get the same treatment as Rizzo did.

    • Scotti

      No team is going to trade a “major league ready” prospect with plus stuff for three months of a “no. 2 starter.” They’d just pitch the guy who is “major league ready” because he’ d be a #2 already. We are in the business of trading current performance for potential performance. You may get a kid that the Cubs stick in the rotation but he (like Wood and Samardzija) will have days and months where he gets the snot beat out of him. I wouldn’t expect anything close to 2012 Wood or Samardzija type performance.

  • Cub Gone Wild

    I’m logging off. I can’t read anymore of this BS pertaining to Detroit trades. I am at the point if we make a trade with Detroit I will lose my mind. I am not believing any of this nonsense I am reading. If Theo makes those deals he is the worst GM in baseball.

    • Ted

      Thanks.

    • AB

      wow, get a grip

      aren’t you the guy proposing the insane Garza to toronto trade and then a bunch of cubs junk prospects to Arizona for Upton trade??

  • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

    “Mid Level Prospect”.
    What’s wrong with that? Do they mean mid-level as in level of minor leagues…like A+? Or do they mean mid-level like a C grade or a 3/5 stars?
    John Sickels rates with letters, a C for him was Jeimer Candelario. You guys would be upset if the Cubs traded Barney for a Candelario type?
    Kevin Goldstein uses 5 stars. A mid-level – 3 stars – could be Szczur, Candelario or Maples.
    A TWO star would be a Junior Lake or Vogelbach.
    I’d use pitchers as an example, but the Cubs lack anyone beside Maples that fits.

    You guys are severely overrating a .310 OBP defense first 2B if you wouldn’t trade him for these types of players.

    • North Side Irish

      That’s a good point that we don’t really know what “mid-level prospect” means. When I read that, I took it as the middle of the team’s Top 20 prospects, which isn’t all that exciting. I think Barney has more value as a sweetener on a deal than in his own deal, such as pushing the return for Dempster from a two B prospects, to an A- & B prospects.

      I do think you’re undervaluing Barney a little since he is playing great defense, but more importantly in today’s game, he provides a great deal of cost certainty in the starting lineup. He “only” makes $500K right now and he’s not eligible for free agency until 2017.

      Also, I think Candelairo has improved his ratings significantly since those ratings were done. I would also never use Goldstein’s reports on Cubs prospects.

      • http://www.viewfromthebleachers.com Norm

        Regarding Candelario, that’s the point…these “C” prospects can improve to B’s or even A’s…
        Why wouldn’t we take that chance on Barney?
        Theo/Jed, if they make a move with Barney, will believe that the player in return will develop into a more valuable player Darwin.

  • North Side Irish

    FWIW, the Cubs Den guys are reporting that the Tigers have moved on from Dempster saying the Cubs asking price is too high. Also relayed a report from Kaplan that the Cubs are currently in negotiations with the Dodgers about Dempster…which hopefully means this is going to come to an end soon. No way do the Cubs want him to make his start tomorrow in STL.

  • thejackal

    Twitter is all a flutter about a potential deal on table from the Dodgers for Ryan Dempster. The reported prospects are the now favorite trade bait, Garret Gould and 2007 First Round pick Chris Withrow even if we gt these two it would be great deal for a rental and whose to say he wont sign back in offseason what you guys think? they do have decent upside

    • Jonski

      For all those that like Gould take a good look at Randy Wells because that’s the type of pitcher he is …average fastball with a chance at plus off speed stuff this is a total fricken rape job!I would keep Dempster and work out a deal to keep him in a Cubs uniform for the next 2 years as long as it is a team friendly deal.

    • Matty Ice

      I don’t think thats enough, Gould is interesting, but Withrow is repeating AA for the 4th time with an ERA over 5 walking 5.3 per 9. If one of the top 4 arms in the dodgers system isn’t involved I think its a weak haul.

    • Njriv

      I’m hoping there’s a way we can get Reed

  • http://bleachernation.com RicoSanto

    I would much ratrher trade LaHair than Barney. There are plenty of good OFs, plus we have many good OFs coming in the next few years. LaHair is at his top worth. Barney is extemely solid.Sveum has developed him and Castro to be one fo the best young middle infield combos.

    • Scotti

      Sveum has had them for a few months. It’s much more accurate to credit the players and those who drafted/developed them before.

  • supergeek24

    I wish the angles would jump on bored garza and marmol for trumbo and some of the angles young arms.

  • thejackal

    nt really a gould fan but two prospects for a 2 mnth rental plus demp loves cubs so much then come on back at end ofd season would much rather have reed tho than gould

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+