No one really knows for sure exactly what happened yesterday. Or why. Or how.

But we can make some informed assumptions, based on the aggregate of information – both hard and speculative – available. The Cubs and Braves agreed to the framework of a deal yesterday, which would send Ryan Dempster and cash to the Braves for 22-year-old pitcher Randall Delgado. There is probably more to the deal than that, but that’s probably the gist. The Cubs were likely negotiating with the Braves on the tentative understanding from Dempster that he would accept a trade to the Braves, if the Cubs worked such a deal out (indeed, there were probably several such teams that the Cubs were negotiating with on this tentative understanding). The agreement, in retrospect, was obviously subject to, and pending, Dempster’s formal approval of the deal.

That agreement between the Cubs and Braves was leaked by someone on the Braves’ side to Mark Bowman, the beat writer for the Braves’ site. Bowman, doing what any reasonable journalist would do, particularly in light of reports just 20 minutes before that the Cubs and Braves were “close” to a deal, broke the story that it was a done deal.

From there, multiple national baseball writers confirmed that the deal was done. The Chicago media was mostly silent, but Dave Kaplan – who later was the first reporter to throw up the brakes on the deal – concurred that he’d heard it was a done deal.

Why would they all do this?

The cynical among you would say that each was just piggybacking off of the initial Bowman report, citing their own “sources,” when, in reality, their “source” was Bowman. I’m not sure I believe that. I think these guys – the Heymans, the Starks, the Crasnicks, etc. – have a wide network of sources, and they probably each did have someone confirm to them that a deal was done. Of course, what we don’t know is where that source was getting his information. Hell, maybe his source was the Bowman report.

At any rate, the reports were out there, and Dempster, himself, had to refute them. From there, the Cubs – who’d been silent, probably because they knew they had yet to get official approval from Dempster on the deal – went in to massive spin control. They did this, probably, for at least two reasons: (1) if the deal fell through, the Cubs didn’t want future trade partners knowing what they were going to get for Dempster (i.e., what they would accept), and (2) the Cubs didn’t want to piss off Dempster, in case he thought maybe they weren’t keeping him in the loop (which they’d openly promised to do).

Dale Sveum took up the Cubs’ mantle, lodging a misguided attack on “the Twitter and the Facebook,” and claiming that the original report – which had, by then, landed on – was a “fabrication.” That’s a bit strong, but, given those two concerns above, and the managerial instinct to protect your players, you can understand the strong reaction. But Sveum said his message was basically coming from the top.

“I found out when I came in off the field from early [batting practice],” Sveum told reporters, when refuting the story. “Somebody said they saw it on the [Cubs] website, so I got on the website and saw it, and called the higher ups to make sure, and they’re like, no, nothing’s happening, I don’t know where that came from. That’s where we are with that.”

So, is there really nothing going on? Of course not. We’ve since heard enough credible reports to believe that, as I said, the deal was agreed to by the teams, and there is now the matter of getting Dempster’s approval. A source told Kevin Goldstein that trades involving players with 10/5 rights are subject to a 24-hour moratorium on announcements (so that the player in ensured of having at least 24 hours to think about the deal), so this entire waiting process may have been preordained all along. We might just be waiting for the inevitable.

After all, would the Cubs really negotiate the specifics of a deal (so specifically, in fact, that the Braves’ side believed they had a done deal) if they didn’t think Dempster would approve the trade?

Then again, maybe Dempster really is upset about how things played out, and maybe he doesn’t want to go to Atlanta. I don’t believe the reports that Dempster was trying to leverage his way into an extension, nor do I believe the theory that it’s the Braves who are demanding an extension (their side leaked the deal – there would be nothing to leak if they knew they were waiting to find out about an extension). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t things, about which we don’t know, that are holding up the deal. It’s times like this that we realize, for as much as we think we know about the inner workings of the front office in this information age, we usually know very little.

In sum, where do things really stand? We don’t know. And we wait. I think it’s still more likely than not that the deal gets done, based on the parameters reported yesterday. News could come down at any time, but things will certainly shake out before Dempster’s scheduled start tomorrow at 11:35am CT.

  • Ben in Nebraska

    This seems to be the anatomy of an ulcer… Hopefully this gets done. There’s too much to like as a Cubs fan about this deal, which is ultimately why it may fall on it’s face!

  • Barry

    Per Crasnick, Dempster now indicating he will accept a trade to ATL.

    • dabynsky

      Where has Crasnick said that? His twitter account said that early indications would be that he would accept a deal to the Braves but he was not happy that news got leaked before the Cubs could tell him they had a deal.

  • SonnyESQ

    Spot on, Brett. Yet another day of distraction from the work piling up on my desk. Not that I’m complaining.

  • ETS

    f5 f5 f5 f5 f5……

  • rhino70

    Excellent Summary Brett.

    I’ve said it before, but I feel I should say it again. I am so glad I found this website. You do an excellent job!

    • Brett

      Thanks, rhino. Very kind.

    • Karena

      I am so glad I found this website. You do an excellent job!

      like like like like like like!!!!!

  • A B

    I have to say that this blog and twitter feed updates were really on top of things.. You guys are doing a great job of keeping (obsessively) up to date, but keeping a non-grumpy pro fan view of things. My fave new Cubs info source for sure, keep up the great work

    • Brett

      Thanks, AB. Appreciate all of that.

  • cubfanincardinalland

    Bowman flat out screwed up. Thirty years ago he would get fired. This is what I meant when I said the age of twitter is a poor substitute for traditional journalism. In the rush to be the first to get the story out there, they don’t do their homework. The story was and should have been reported, that the Cubs and Braves had possibly reached the paramaters of a deal and were in the process of finalizing things, including getting Dempster to waive his no trade rights.
    That is what should have been written. What was reported was a “fabrication” as Sveum called it.

    • Jack Weiland

      This may come as a shock, but given the much more incredible pace of news, I’m totally cool with the tradeoff of “getting every story a million times faster and having the occasional screw up.”

      Also comparing journalism 30 years ago and pretending it was in any way better (overall) is really silly. It’s a totally different game now, and attacked in totally different ways. Pretending that reporters never screwed up 30 years ago is a false memory. And 30 years ago the reporter probably would not have been fired, because 30 years ago we didn’t have as many name brand reporters as we do now. People would have been pissed at the publication if anything, they’d have run an apology, and everyone would have moved on. Now we get to comment on message boards and be butthurt for days.

      It’s kind of ironic to me that you’re choosing to post on a blog to voice your displeasure about the way journalism works today. Newspapers still exist. If you don’t like the absurdly increased pace of disseminating that news and the depth at which every story is covered nowadays, feel free to buy a subscription to your local newspaper and wait for yesterday’s news every morning just like the good old days.

      • cubfanincardinalland

        I am not comparing a blog like Brett’s in any way to the false story that was put out on twitter yesterday. Brett is more like columnist, using conjecture and possibilities. He never reports actual news as fact unless it has been confirmed. Big difference between that and how twitter is being used as a journalism tool.
        An editor like Ben Bradley would be going crazy over yesterday. He was obsessive in having his reporters confirm and reconfirm their sources. To falsely report news was a disaster, to be avoided at all costs. Today, no big deal.

        • ETS

          ^^^ This

        • Cyranojoe

          Ben Bradley was cream of the crop. Not fair to compare the very best of mainstream investigative news to a frikkin’ sports writer. And anybody who expects Watergate-quality reportage out of Twitter has lost their minds.

        • Jack Weiland

          This is my problem with people who complain about Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. They pick and choose good new media they like, carve it out, and then say that bad examples of same media are “what’s wrong with journalism today.”

          This blog and twitter are both examples of new media. There are good uses and bad uses. There were good uses and bad uses of newspapers. Pretending this was not the case 30 years ago is just plain old false.

          It’s entirely possible the reporter in question (and the others who verified that report) checked and rechecked their sources and they were just plain old wrong. There’s no need to go macro and blame the entire form of media for one guy’s goof up. I’m not happy about it either, it sucks. A lot. But it happens, people are humans, etc. The tradeoff of getting news insanely faster is worth whatever increase in mistakes like this there are (if there even IS an increase, which would probably be very small). If you think old style newspaper reporters never printed an eroneous report, I mean, wake up. And by the time they retracted/corrected it you’d have waited an entire day or longer.

          Lastly, nobody is saying we shouldn’t demand excellence and accuracy from reporters today just because the tools they use are vastly different than 30 years ago. What I AM saying, is we should judge both fairly and on reality, not picking and choosing bad instances now to blow up into a bigger deal than they are, and not pretending that everything was perfect 30 years ago.

      • stillmisskennyhubbs

        Calm down, sir. The credo of any true journalist is still “Verify your sources.” That, and accuracy, are foremost.
        This site stresses attribution of its news and quotations, much better than many other sites.
        I agree that, in the day, the Braves’ beat writer would have been fired or sent to cover the pet auction. Today, he gets off with a shrug of the shoulders (not Rock Shoulders) and, “Oh well, at least he was fast.”
        It is not either/or as to newspapers vs. modern media. We should still demand responsible reporting from ALL media.

        • Danny B

          Glad you clarified on the substance of the shoulders. I think we should work that youngster’s name into more everyday conversations. Ha

    • Mat B

      Quite right. Journalism is not what it used to be. Though, this site does try very hard to retain that old journalistic integrity. That’s why we all come here.

      • Matt

        I don’t think journalism has changed as much as our perception of how we believe everything was better “back in the day.” See: DEWEY WINS, just to give a short example.

        • Mat B

          That is a good point, but they had a deadline for that morning paper & information wasn’t disseminated then as quickly as it is now. Still, a very good point.

          • Mat B

            They also couldn’t tabulate election results as quickly as they can now. They were probably relying on exit polls, which brings into question the journalistic integrity at the time, which you’ve already pointed out, may not have changed as much as we would like to think.

        • stillmisskennyhubbs

          In the faltering name of accuracy, it was actually
          “Dewey Defeats Truman”
          Oh yes, it was the Chicago Tribune.

    • randy cutright


    • Mdel78

      I may be in the minority, but I don’t blame Bowman, twitter, Brett, etc. in any way shape or form. This is their job… the develop trusted sources, the take information from those sources, and they report on it. Brett reported on what he heard, what was actually confirmed through multiple sources, before the backtracking began. (In fact, to me, the value in what Brett does is the real-time updates and analysis, the ability to provide level headed analysis when there is a lot of ‘information’ out there.) I know few people are blaming Brett, and I don’t think this will change what he does, but I’m just using that example to extend to Bowman. I wouldn’t expect him to change what he does or how he has been doing it. He wasn’t fabricating anything, just got some bad information from a source that was probably right the last 10 times. If that source starts to trend the wrong direction, he probably won’t be a source very long.

      If I was blaming anyone, I’m speculating there was an overzealous individual in the Braves FO that didn’t understand how this process works. I think this was further demonstrated some of the comments from Braves ‘sources’ since saying they were surprised an announcement hadn’t been made yet. As Goldstein said (and Brett commented on here), there is a 24-hour moratorium to announce these deals. Someone didn’t know that, and I think they truly believed a deal was done, and jumped the gun.

      In any event, just to clarify the most important point, keep up the good work Brett! This site has become a daily visit the past 6 months, and I’m looking forward to what the next 7 days bring.

      • Mdel78

        Oh, and just to clarify, I didn’t mean to refer to Brett backtracking… I meant from the media in general on the deal.

  • AD

    It looks like the Marlins are considering trading Hanley Ramierez. His trade value is about as low as it will ever be. Do you think Theo & Company would consider trading for him this year and making an infield of Castro, Ramierez, Barney, and Rizzo. Realizing that this is very unlikely what would it take to acquire Ramierez?

    • Andrewmoore4isu

      My thoughts exactly on the marlins. I don’t k ow how long Hanley has left on his contract but he’s due to turn things around. Let’s buy low and hope for the best

      • andrew

        two years at roughly 15.75mill each. If the marlins paid a good chunk of that it might be a worthwhile move imo, probably not until the offseason. Id rather the cubs pay and get headley personally.

        • AD

          I think Ramirez would take at least two players out of Baez, Jackson, Sczur, Maples, Lake, Vitters. Personally I would feel comfortable trading Lake, Jackson, and Dolis for Ramirez. Probably would take more though.

          • Mat B

            I don’t want anyone to have Sczur, but the Cubs. He’s too good a kid and still growing as a player to send anywhere else. I want to see him promoted to AA soon & start next year at AAA. I also want to see what Vitters can do. Of your list I also keep Baez. The rest, they can pick from.

    • Aaron

      I don’t think Hanley fits the model of what they’re trying to do, on a couple levels. But that would certainly be fun to see happen.

      • Andrewmoore4isu

        Explain? Too much of a zambrano personality? He’s relatively young.

        • Aaron

          Well, he’s already 28, and getting more expensive. Also, he’s not really a 3B, and obviously we’re not playing him at SS. He is going to profile in a corner OF eventually. All in all, there are better options.

      • AD

        That’s my thinking too. I don’t think he is a third baseman either. Probably better suited a shortstop or second base. I don’t see the Cubs moving Barney due to his exceptional defense this year and there is no need to upset Castro by moving him third base.

    • Mick

      The Marlins asking price for Hanley is probably low due to his declined production and hefty contract. It also seems like the Marlins are in the process of another fire sale, similar to what they did after their 2 championships. What if all it took to acquire Hanley was Josh Vitters, or McNutt, or Dolis? Even if Hanley bounces back and the Cubs were willing to eat most of his contract at the deadline next season, we probably wouldn’t yield any larger return than what we’d paid. Also, it’s not like Hanley’s a building block for our 2014 or more likely 2015 push for the playoffs. He’ll be 30 for the 2014 season and will also require a new FA contract. Finally, I’m interested to see what happens with Garza. First word is the Dodgers are interested in a Zach Lee swap but they don’t really have any other interesting enough prospects for it to be a match. I’m hoping that the Rangers after Hamels signs an extension and Greinke pitches a dud will come calling with Mike Olt and Martin Perez at which point we’ll have our 3B of the future locked up.

      • bbmoney

        I really doubt the cubs would have much interest unless the asking prices was extremely low (but then everyone would be interested). But extremely low would still be much more than Vitters or McNutt or Dolis.

        • Scott

          This whole thing about a guy who is 27 or older being to old for our “window” is getting a little old (pun intended). There are no championship teams where every guy is 27 years old. You can’t have every player in the middle of their primes, it doesn’t happen. He could still be a very good player at 32 in 2016.

          • Aaron

            Who would you rather gamble on though? A kid who will make a couple million that you can coach and indoctrinate into your own system, or someone who’s in his prime now, makes 10+ mil a year (and will for the rest of his career), with declining skillsets and a potential diva attitude?

            That was a leading question, obviously. Clearly, we’ll need guys who are older that will help with that championship run. But – we’re not there yet. And FA will come into play when we are, in a big way. Cubs are hoarding cash now and will be ready to drop a bomb in FA one of these years.

            Alll about ground work right now.

          • bbmoney

            He probably still will be a good player at 32 in 2016. But the biggest thing isn’t his age, its that we’d have to resign him by then anyways and pay him $10+ per year the next two years when I don’t think we’ll compete (maybe by 2014), so why trade something for him now? If he hits the FA market after 2014 and you want to go after him do it and I’d like that because I think he can be a difference maker, probably even then.

            My biggest point was its going to take a lot more than just Vitters, for instance to get him. A lot more, I really don’t think Vitters, McNutt and Dolis would get it done. We’d have to thow in at least one really high ceiling guy too I’m sure. And I don’t think most orgs believe Vitters or McNutt have a particularly high ceiling anymore.

            • Aaron

              ^^ This. Particularly the first paragraph.

            • Scott

              I agree with you on the premise of not giving up long-term assets for short-term assets. I just wonder how high is value really is and think with him the Cubs could compete in 2014, if good rotation pieces are added.

              • bbmoney

                I did just see on baseball reference that Hanley is owed $31.5 in 2013 and 14 combined….which is a lot, not outrageous for a former MVP type who is still young, but certainly hurts his trade value.

                I’d still be surprised if the Cubs are interested though just because of when he hits FA.

                • Scott

                  Fangraph’s article

                  “Given what’s left on his contract, there are probably two kinds of deals that make sense for Ramirez — a large revenue team just taking his contract off Miami’s hands for little or no talent in return, or a smaller revenue club surrendering a real prospect in exchange for the Marlins paying some of the freight to ship him out of town.”

        • Mick

          Would a lot of teams be interested? $16 million/year is a lot to pay for a .240 hitter. Maybe, potentially, the Marlins and DBacks could swap Hanley and a couple prospects for Upton. Otherwise, I could see the Yankees absorbing that kind of deal, giving Hanley 3B and moving ARod to DH.

          • bbmoney

            I know he’s been a .245 hitter the last year and a half, but….still a .300 career hitter still just 28. Still has 14 hrs and 14Sbs this year with career slash line of .300/.374/.499. I mean if I’m a team that can compete in the next couple of years and has any kind of need at 3b or probably even OF, I’d be interested.

  • Adam

    I call bullcrap on this Dempster was blindsided stuff. Blindsided by what? That he was traded? He surely had a list of teams approved that he would accept a trade to. Also, the Cubs were traveling and had a game in a few hours, it wouldn’t be too hard to find him to tell him.

    • David

      I grudgingly agree with you. I like Dempster, and am not eager to think badly of him, but we’ve been hearing all along that he’d accept a trade “if it helps the club”. Now when a trade occurs, which certainly sounds like it would help the club, but because someone leaked it before TheoJed called him, he’s throwing a fit?

      Atlanta was one of the most rumored teams, so it couldn’t be that he was “blindsided” by that destination. It’s also been rumored all along that he was likely one of the first players to be dealt before the deadline, and that’s a little over a week away, so he really shouldn’t have been “blindsided” by the timing.

  • Cheryl

    Good analysis Brett and a good statement of what should have been done cubfanincardinalland. At the least, Bowman should have confirmed that all i’s were dotted and t’s crossed and that the deal was still in process. Until he did that, he should have not revealed the names involved in the deal.

    • Mat B

      That’s what I was thinking; no names, just that there was a deal in the works, and let the rabid fans speculate.

  • quintz

    I have no doubt what-so-ever that most of these reporters have zero “sources” and feel compelled to say they do to keep up with everyone else. I’m not a media player, but it isn’t rather unethical to say you have “sources” when clearly you have none and are running with nothing more than the original (flawed) report.

    You can now understand why I furrow my brow at “rumors” given by “unnamed sources”. If reporters are willing to lie about having sources, why is it so far fetched to say they would fabricate rumors.

    By no means is it the end of the world or even a big deal in the scheme of things, but it is annoying.

    • Jack Weiland

      What is this based on? Do you know reporters who have told you they report rumors and say they’re sourced when they’re really not? Why is not possible that these people DID have sources, and the sources were just wrong?

      Ever been wrong before? Me too.

      • stillmisskennyhubbs

        No; I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was wrong about that.

    • Brett

      I guess I just put myself in other writers’ shoes – for me, I have WAY more to lose by making stuff up than I have to gain by doing so. Lying has just never made sense to me.

  • Idaho Razorback

    I can’t stand the Braves. If this trade goes through, I hope Delgado turns out to be a Fergie Jenkins at the least.

    • Jack Weiland

      A Fergie Jenkins “at least”!!! Wow, no pressure kid!

      • Mat B

        That would be sweet!

  • Dan

    Thanks for all the updates……..27 holy cow!
    You were all over this one!
    Good job as always!

  • LWeb23

    I just threw this out there in the bullets post, but more relevant here…. Maybe the Braves WANT Dempster to pitch for the Cubs Wednesday, and beat the Wild Card Leading Pirates?

    • HeyChicagoWhatyaSay

      Hey Brett, I think you should start developing an iPhone/Android app for BN, I would love to get a push notification every time you publish a new article or update an existing one.

      • Andrewmoore4isu

        Link his twitter to your text messages

        • Patrick G

          Now this may be the dumbest question of all time. I don’t have a twitter account but do check certain people’s twitter every so often for updates. Is it possible to get twitter updates via text without an account or do I have to be an actual follower?

          • LWeb23

            You would need to be an actual follower.

      • Brett

        I would love to do the same – it’s on the list. But probably a ways off still.

        • Scott

          Run a kickstarter campaign!

        • Cerambam

          i actually just finished up the contracts with an developer for 3 apps im creating id love to get you guys in contact if you want?

    • HeyChicagoWhatyaSay

      Oops, that wasn’t supposed to be a reply haha Sorry

    • Andrewmoore4isu

      Now that is thinking outside the box. The cubs wouldn’t do something like that though invade of injury or Something else. Good perspective none the less

    • andrew

      I’d imagine theyd rather have him pitch for their team instead.

  • rbreeze

    Great site Brett!!! I found it late last year when the “Theo to the Cubs” news broke and have been hooked ever since. Now lets get this Dempster deal done and move on to the the rest of this summers Cubs transformation!!!

    • Brett

      Thanks, rb.

  • BeyondFukudome

    Dear Ryan:

    The world today includes an uncontrollable rumor-mongering maching called the internet. Since you use Twitter, I assume you have heard of it. So please grow up.

  • Dustin S

    This has been a flashback to ~10 years ago, when there were reports that Sosa had been traded to the Yankees about 5 or 6 times but it always fell through after a leak. It’s just frustrating when (like back then) this is a deal the team needs to make.

  • donnie kessinger

    Very well explained and handled Brett… thanks for all the great info!

  • Steve

    Demp saying he’ll go but pissed this was leaked before he was approached (may be old news to you guys)

    • dabynsky

      Where has Dempster said he will go? That is news to me. The second half is what we’ve been finding out.

    • Brett

      Where are you hearing that he says he’ll go?

  • The Other Brett

    I’m not supposing he knows anything “insider”ish, but William Bartholomay, former owner of the Braves, speaking at the MLB Diversity Summit, just mentioned that “we would have Dempster already if the newspapers would get out of the way.”

    • Brett

      Certainly interesting. I could see how, from the Braves’ side of things, they could be pissed, too (at their own media, I mean).

      But how about putting the lens on the gloryhound leaker, whomever it was.

  • Rich

    I did see a tweet this morning that said the same thing.

    Jerry Crasnick ‏@jcrasnick

    Sources say Ryan Dempster had given preliminary indications that he would accept a trade to the #braves from #cubs
    Retweeted by MLB Trade Rumors

    • Brett

      Read that more carefully – “had given.” He’s talking about back when Dempster and Theo talked about possible landing spots.

  • FromFenwayPahk

    Dempster’s greatest value to the Cubs may be as a Cub. Personally, I am still feeling very good about that.

  • The Other Brett

    @Brett – agreed!

  • mudge

    Soriano, Soto, Castro, Germano, Rizzo, Delgado. Are we seeing a pattern here?

    • BeyondFukudome

      Uh-oh, spaghetti-o’s!

      • Njriv

        This reminded me when I had a conversation with my buddy last year, and at the time there were 6 Carlos’ playing on a Chicago professional sports team, 4 on the Cubs alone! Carlos: Zambrano, Marmol, Pena, Silva, Quentin and Boozer.

    • WNebCub

      and theo

    • stillmisskennyhubbs

      Fits in with Pafko, Santo and Ryno….

  • Njriv

    Three main deals I hope the Cubs get done:
    Dempster to the Braves.
    Garza to the Rangers.
    Maholm to the Pirates/Orioles.

    • MightyBear

      I don’t see why you would want Maholm to go to the Orioles. They have two great prospects which won’t be in a Maholm trade and the rest of their system is pretty thin.

    • Carew

      If Maholm goes to the Orioles, i think that would make everyone happy. I was talking with my friend whose obsessed about them like we are with cubs and he would kill for him. I know its only teenagers talking, but he seems to be in the know about a lot of stuff somehow. He suggested Maholm for either Matusz or Arrieta

    • Aaron

      Yeah, I’d prefer the Pirates for Maholm. Deeper system to pick from.

    • Steve

      The Rangers have a few huge upside youngsters that i would LOVE to have

      Check out Cody Buckel….I’d take 2 just like him and a lesser kid for Garza in a second.

      • Njriv

        Yeah I like him too, the Cubs can probably grab Buckel and at least one (maybe two?) of the Rangers big 3 (Profar, Perez, Olt). in a package deal of some sort involving Garza.

  • DowntownLBrown

    My cousin and all my friends are Braves fan (Live in East TN). They are pissed at Dempster. I said it the trade doesnt go through, be pissed at your own front office and media for not being able to keep a secret long enough for Theo to talk to Demps.

  • donnie kessinger

    I hope Ryan Dempster continues to perform through all the added pressure of potentially being traded. He is a class act, and this situation would be tough on anyone. But it is the nature of the game and the media. I don’t think there has been any malicious or erroneous stories out there. This happens to be a subject that interest a lot of fans. If Demp remains a Cub for life, I would be okay with that. Maybe he has five more good years left!

  • yuuuup

    This website is the truth. Glad I found it last year. No better website anywhere else.

    • Brett

      Now that’s a lofty compliment. Thank you.

  • Derrick

    I’m not sure why everyone is pining for Garza to leave the team. I’m all for Dempster leaving, getting young prospects in return. Garza is a good top of the rotation pitcher, is (only) 28 years old and I’d be willing to take the chance that he resigns with the Cubs when his contract is up.

    • bbmoney

      I wouldn’t mind the cubs hanging onto Garza…but only if they lock him up before he hits FA after 2013. Otherwise I’d like to see them get more for him than just the comp pick if they can’t resign him once he hits the market.

  • Serious Cubs Fan

    Hey Brett how many hits did you get on the site yesterday, last time in checked you 65,000 and that was 3:00pm you said I think