Obviously there is a ton to cover from yesterday, including quotes from Jed Hoyer and Ryan Dempster, as well as reactions to the deals, more on the prospects, etc. That’s all coming later today/tomorrow/Friday. We’ll also talk about the August trade environment, which could – and probably will – see the Cubs make another move or two. For now, the Bullets …

  • The Braves are happy to have ended up with Paul Maholm and Reed Johnson after missing out on Ryan Dempster. GM Frank Wren, on the contrast of getting Maholm, versus giving up Arodys Vizcaino: “He’s a good-looking young pitcher and we gave up a quality prospect. But to not give up some of the guys that have been mentioned, that was a real plus for us. The Cubs are in a different spot than we’re in. They’re looking for a long-range young pitcher that they can hold on to for a long time. We’re in a spot where we feel like we have a team that can win.” In other words, the Braves weren’t too bummed about losing Vizcaino. It’s cool – if you’d asked me two months ago whether the Cubs could get a prospect who would come in as a top ten member of their system for Maholm, I would have chuckled and patted you on the head.
  • Reed Johnson, on his way out the door to the Braves, offered extremely high praise for Anthony Rizzo. “I think the reason I see that he is going to be a star is just the attitude in general,” Johnson said on Waddle & Silvy. “He doesn’t get too high, and he doesn’t get too low which is exactly what you need in this game. I think he is the real deal. He has come up here, and he’s respectful to the older players, and I think that’s something you don’t see in that younger generation. He’s got all the tools and all the opportunity there in Chicago to be that guy.”
  • Darwin Barney was pulled from last night’s game (but not hugged) after being beaned in the head, and has been tested for a concussion. The Cubs expect those results today, and might decide to give him a day off today, either way. (And the lineup was just released, yup, he’s not starting.)
  • The Garza’s welcomed their fourth child yesterday, a little girl named Summer. Big congrats, Garzas.
  • Speaking of Garza, he’s not expected to start again until Tuesday, which means he will have been out for more than 15 days between starts. That would seem to suggest the Cubs will DL him at some point soon, unless they want to play a player down until Tuesday (which they might not actually mind, given the off-day tomorrow). The Cubs have another roster move to make, too – although they’ve filled the spots vacated by three of the four players they dealt in the last two days, one more should be coming as soon as today.
  • Jayson Stark calls the Cubs the third biggest loser at the deadline, but only because of bad luck.
  • Gerardo Concepcion hasn’t pitched in over a month. He’s on the DL at Peoria, but my understanding was that it was with some kind of illness. I’m starting to wonder what the deal is, and I reckon it’s probably time to start asking around. I hope it isn’t serious.
  • Kevin Goldstein offered a re-rank of the top 50 prospects in baseball (not including anyone in the majors or anyone just drafted), and the Cubs have two guys who show up: Javier Baez comes in at number 15, and Jorge Soler is number 24.
  • Strictly-speaking, this is apropos of nothing, but John Danks, the cross-town starter whose five-year, $65 million extension this offseason is often pointed to as a comparison for the Cubs’ theorized talks with Matt Garza, is now going to miss the rest of the season after exploratory shoulder surgery. Think he’s pretty happy he signed that extension when he did?
  • The MLBullets at BCB look at the trade deadline, and then the rash of injuries that followed.
  • Meta: Sadly, Poynter publishes what might be the worst article you’ll read from an otherwise creditable organization on the Ryan Dempster/Braves trade debacle. It’s not a badly written piece, but its thesis is embarrassing. Who gets the blame for the deal falling apart at the last moment in ignominious fashion – Dempster? The Cubs? The Braves? The Media? Nope. Twitter. Forget that the story was originally broken by a veteran news man, forget that the story made its way onto MLB.com (something that the Poynter article acknowledges could have happened in the pre-Twitter era, sparking the same debacle – psst, Poynter: it DID happen). The problem was (the) Twitter. And, in a cherry-on-top that I couldn’t have scripted with a straight face? The Poynter article ends with a tweet (without acknowledging that irony) from executive-turned-media-member Jim Bowden about the problems Twitter is causing for executives. Bowden, himself, earlier that same day, broke a Dempster story that wasn’t: he tweeted, “Dodgers getting Dempster.” Cherry. On. Top.
  • Sosa23

    next deals we need to pull are sori and/or marmol on waivers and garza possibly in off season.

  • Dan

    Good Luck to you Reed in Atlanta!

  • TWC

    Volstad? Frackin’ VOLSTAD is the roster move?

    I am upset.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Not sure how that’s going to play out.

      • TWC

        Hopefully the Cubs just need another pair of hands to scrape up the pile of peanut shells I left under my seat a few weeks ago.

        • gratefulled

          LOL! They were up to my knees… I blame the Old Styles.

    • Fishin Phil

      I know you were dying to see RoLo come back.

      • TWC

        In all honesty, I’d much, much rather that RoLo get another start than Volstad. Perhaps if he’d shown some — any — improvement during his demotion, but he’s been lit up in IA.

        I wonder if Koyie Hill would be available for a spot start…

        • MichiganGoat

          Yeah the pain of either will hurt, but this is the pain of rebuilding

  • gratefulled

    “He has come up here, and he’s respectful to the older players”

    Another reason that Anthony Rizzo is my favorite player. The accolades that are coming from a person that plays the game as hard as Reed Johnson speak volumes about Rizzo’s ability and character.

    • Ogyu

      This doesn’t mean that Rizzo is “scrappy,” does it?

      • Fishin Phil

        He is too big to be scrappy. True scrappiness is confined to those of us under 6′ tall.

  • fortyonenorth

    What are the rules on the DL? Can a player be placed on it retroactively? Meaning, if Garza’s been out for 10 days, can he go on the 15-day DL and then pitch five days from now?

    • Cooper

      Yes, players can be placed on the DL retroactive to their last game played. So if he is out 10 days, then they put him on the DL, he would be eligible to return after 5 (a cumulative 15 days out).

  • CubsFanBob

    I hope Volstad rebounds.

    Whats the turn around on TJ surgery these days.

    • Cooper

      I think the general thinking is still 1 year before pitching in real games, and often another 6+ months to fully return to 100% (work off the rust, clean up mechanics, rebuild arm strength, regain mental approach/confidence, etc.).

      If memory serves, Strasburg had his TJ in August 2010, returned to pitch pretty effectively (but with some rust) late last year, and has been lights out this year.

  • CubsFanBob

    Also I wonder if that pitch to Barney inside wasnt on purpose. I thought I heard or read that Barney was yelling into the Pirates dugout after he hit that home run the 1st game.

    • fortyonenorth

      Interesting thought. I doubt AJ would have risked getting ejected with the no-no still intact. What do you think?

    • ottoCub

      No. The pitch was a breaking ball that got away. Barney was quoted in the media after the first game as saying that he was yelling at himself for a bad play in the field, not yelling into the PIrates dugout.

    • Cooper

      Barney was hit with a breaking ball, so I really doubt that it was a message pitch. Looked like a looper that just got a little inside. It would have hit his torso, except Darwin inadvertantly and unfortuntately ducked his head right into it.

  • Brunsmk

    Congrats on breaking up the no hitter, have a seat on the bench again. With Barney out and Valbuena hitting under the Mendoza line how is Cardenas not starting?

    • Sosa23

      it makes no sense at all. i was thinking the same.

  • Stu

    I think the CUBS did fine. Keeping Garza and Soriano is not the end of the world because they have no one to replace their production.

    It is not always great to pickup prospects for the sake of getting prospects. The odds are lower than most people want to admit for prospects to make any impact in the Majors. Soriano is a sunk cost who still can put up decent numbers for the remainder of his contract. Who is he blocking right now?

    Garza can be signed to a long term extension now that is value has been diminished with the injury. Who is he blocking right now?

    The only guy I might question is the Maholm trade since good starting left-handed pitchers don’t grow on trees. However, his stats over the last month are too good to sustain given his historical numbers. So they sold high on him. Understandable.

    I keep saying that the CUBS have some responsibility to the current paying customers to put a credible team on the field. If we just throw out the Casey Colemans of the organization as “starting pitchers”, I think the product on the field is a fraud.

  • Stu


    I think people want to trash Theo and Jed when they can because of the arrogance that they give. It sets them up. They did fine.

  • fortyonenorth

    “I keep saying that the CUBS have some responsibility to the current paying customers to put a credible team on the field. If we just throw out the Casey Colemans of the organization as “starting pitchers”, I think the product on the field is a fraud.”

    The FO is empowered to tear down completely because fans will still come out to the ballpark regardless of the team they’re fielding. If that wasn’t the case, it might be a slower, more methodic, process.

    • randy cutright


  • SalukiCub

    Just a random thought: What if we tried to push Garza through waivers today? With questions about his health, would it scare off teams from claiming him, knowing they might potentially receive damage goods? Would it benefit us in trying to pass him through before his next start?

    Also, say he miraculously does pass through waivers. Is there a time period in which a trade must be consummated? I know there is if he is claimed, but what if he is not claimed?

    • hansman1982

      He probably will be placed on waivers (along with everyone) but someone will claim him, now the Cubs may try to work a trade with the claiming team, pull him back or allow the claim and they would go in that order.

      Once a player clears waivers (such as Soriano, Baker, Marmol, LaHair, Valbuena) its open season on trades until Aug 31st. After this date no trades can be made until after the WS.

      • SalukiCub

        I know he probably will be claimed, but if there was anytime he was going to get through it would be right now. I mean without being able to review the medical records, would you put a claim on him, knowing you might be hung with around 16 million dollars and a date with Dr. Andrews?

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          He wouldn’t get past the Astros, the very first team. They wouldn’t be hung with anything but a couple million bucks, as he could be non-tendered after the season. And, assuming he’s healthy – which he is – they could trade him in the offseason.

          Garza getting through waivers is a complete non-discussion, I’m afraid.

          • hansman1982

            yup, I bet he has already been claimed off waivers. Perhaps 20 years ago you could hope to possibly begin thinking about being possibly able to theorize about the chance you sneak a guy like him through at this time of the year but with front offices the size they are now there is a better chance that the sun will supernova or gravity will reverse later today.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            Here’s last year’s August waiver explanation article. I’ll be doing another one tomorrow.


            • SalukiCub

              Would the claiming club not be on the hook for his 2013 salary as well? Or is that not determined because he is still arbitration eligible?

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                The latter. Since he is arbitration eligible, he’s not “under contract” for 2013 (he’s simply “under control” for 2013). If the Astros took him (which, by the way, wouldn’t happen either, because the waivers are revocable, and the Cubs would be plenty happy to keep Garza, so they would revoke the waiver and keep him), and he was all broken, they could just “non-tender” him in December, and he’d become a free agent. From their perspective, the upside in claiming him would be more than worth the risk.

            • hansman1982

              One addition I learned from Jim Duquette today is that you can put 7 guys on waivers at a time, waivers start at 2PM today and run for 47 hours. At 4PM today every team in baseball gets an email with the day’s transactions including waivers.

              This repeats every day so if you want to sneak someone in by placing them on waivers at 5:00PM, your waiver doesn’t start until 2PM the next day.

              There is a similar wiaver process in April, basically, anyone that was traded yesterday (non-40 man rosterees not included) has already cleared waivers once (and maybe twice but he wasn’t clear on that). Teams generally do not claim a guy then to avoid being a douchenozzle and getting dicked in the dick later in the season.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                Great stuff, hans. Teams are SUPER secretive about waivers, so even learning a little bit more is great.

      • Gcheezpuff

        I thought waiver trades could still be made after August 31st, but the players traded couldn’t play in the postseason?

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          You are correct.

    • EQ76

      hmmmm…. interesting approach.. could work?

  • Master Dan

    The Cubs did have some bad luck the last week of the deadline. I think Theo and company did an awesome job getting the most they could. I’m glad we have these guys at the helm. Now comes the pain of waiting for these prospects to grow…, might be a really, really long time…

  • Katie

    Has anyone thought of how much worse the deadline could have been with Jimbo still working the phones? Ugh.

    • Sosa23

      we wouldve only traded dempster to the dodgers for their crappy offer more then likely

    • MightyBear

      Well said young lady.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      The Wife asked me the same thing yesterday. And, yeah, it could have been ugly.

  • Nathan

    Wow…I know it is just a guys opinion and I love Javier Baez as much as the next guy, but it has seemed like ages since the Cubs had a prospect that was known around the baseball world as an elite level prospect. Baez could possibly crack the top 10 list next year if he keeps tearing it up. And with the additions of Soler, Almora, Viscaino, and so many other quality prospects, the Cubs really do seem to have a bright future. If they sign a couple of veterans in the off-season worth some value at the deadline next year, we can see the farm system load up evan more. The FO is doing a terrific job as far as I am concerned.

    • Jack Weiland

      The Cubs had tons of elite prospects a decade ago.

      But yeah, I agree, the FO has done a nice job with the farm so far, as I expected them to.

      • Nathan

        That is why I said “it has seemed like ages”

  • Mdel78

    I watched some of the ESPN coverage from Onley and Kruk and their discussions didn’t make much sense to me, at one point the team suggested the Cubs rebuilding plan of being competitive by 2015 may have to be pushed back.

    In my opinion, they are basis this on the fact that (1) they didn’t get a number of big prospects back and (2) things didn’t go as planned. I’m not arguing their points, but things rarely go as planned for any team, and it’s how you react that matters. The guys the Cubs didn’t move, Garza, Soriano, and Marmol, all are under Cubs control and can be moved in the waiver season or next summer (Garza specifically). They didn’t all of the sudden lose these assets today. The guys they were going to lose control over, all for potentially no compensation, turned into a pretty decent prospect return (include, as ESPN admits, one star caliber prospect).

    All things considered, I think the Cubs did a good job.

    Curious others opinion though.

    • cubs217

      Well Back to the Future II told me the Cubs are going to win the World Series in 2015 so Im sticking with that

      • MontelleW

        Hmmm…..I wonder what the payout on a bet would be on that? Oh wait- let me ask Biff – he’s the one holding the sports almanac and talkin to the bookies! LOL Seriously though – that would be freakin cool if it worked out that way – but seeing as how we were to have flying cars by the time he got to the future and we haven’t yet – I’m not gonna hold my breath – but I am gonna cross my fingers! :)

        • MikeL

          The weird thing about that moment in BTTF part II is that I think Marty says that the Cubs beat Miami in the world series. Now that we actually have a team that officially has “Miami” in thier team name instead of Florida, we need to move them to the American League by 2015 to make this happen!!

          • Leroy K.

            Everyone writes the Cubs off—every year. The last time we were predicted to win was 2004. Damn Dusty Baker…

    • OlderStyle

      I would agree. They did pretty well considering the Dodgers had them by the short ones but Cubs’ FO did not say “uncle”.
      If not for some bad luck (Dempster’s rejection, Soriano’s rejection of Giants trade, and Garza’s very ill-timed injury) it could have been a very happy turnover of vets into projectable long-term assets. (am very curious what Soriano’s deal would have looked like)
      I realize it’s pretty useless to think about what might have been, but the thing to take away is the clear signs that the FO is doing good business and positioning the org. for sustained success. So, I’d rather light a candle than curse the darkness.
      Go Cubs.

    • EQ76

      I think that from an offensive standpoint, we’ll be competitive sooner.. it’s the pitching we lack but may turn that around when Garza gets dealt.

    • MikeL

      I think when people hear that the cubs plan on building through the farm system they get the impression that they will have a payroll similar to the rays and Padres . Or even to the Reds and Cardinals and not sign any free agents whatsoever. The cubs payroll might be lower for a bit, but not forever.

  • Nathan

    I am also very intrigued by Hendricks. I know he is in A ball but it seems as if whenever the Cubs call up a pitcher, they all have a hard time finding the strike zone. My dad and I were talking about this yesterday, and we both agree Hendricks could be huge sleeper and turn out to be something special for the Cubs in years to come. I look forward to watching him develop. The fact that he is smart kid, and went to Dartmouth doesn’t hurt either. He’s a pitcher not a thrower.

    • MightyBear

      Amen. Well put Nathan. 130 innings 15 walks for Hendricks this year. I’m a fan.

    • terencem

      Hendricks’ ceiling is Paul Maholm, just FYI. He tops out around 88-89 right now. He’s very pitch to contact and might be advanced for his level. That’s still something valuable that other teams will want if he can make it to the bigs. When was the last time the Cubs graduated a quality 4-5 starter from their minor league system who wasn’t a near bust like Samardzija?

      • Nathan

        Let’s just see how it plays out. Plus I have heard he can hit 93 on the gun.

      • Nathan

        Another point I would make, is that even if you are right and he turns out to be a 4th starter; who is to say he can’t be a very good four starter on a championship caliber team. He could be that guy, that goes out there every fifth and keeps his team in the ball game because he is smart and throws strikes. It’s about time the Cubs have some smart players. Championship caliber teams have very good fourth and fifth starters for the most part. My thing with Hendricks is I believe he will prove people wrong, but that is something we will found out in time

      • MightyBear

        Give the kid a chance. All the experts said the same thing about another kid who topped out at 90. His name was Greg Maddux and he threw strikes too. I hear he did pretty well for himself. Pitching isn’t about velocity or what some scout thinks.

        • DocPeterWimsey
        • Kyle

          Greg Maddux most definitely did not top out at 90. He worked at 90, but he had a few extra MPH there when he wanted it too.

          • MightyBear

            My bad. I shouldn’t have said he topped out at 90 but that’s where he consistently pitched at his peak. He could hit 92-93 but that’s not where he lived. And in his later years, he was still effective even though he didn’t throw as hard.

        • DocPeterWimsey

          I would also add that when Greg made his MLB debut 2 years younger in age, the experts were saying: “Pay attention! This one could be really good.”

          • MightyBear

            So when did Hendricks make his ML debut?

            • Edwin

              1910, 1968, or 1902, I believe. Why?

            • DocPeterWimsey

              That is a question that Doctor Who might be able to answer, but not Doctor Wimsey….

  • terencem

    Also, as far as the Twitter controversy goes, it’s important to note that Bowden himself tweeted that it looked like Dempster was going to the Yankees late in the afternoon yesterday, with the caveat that he was trying to get confirmation, at one point. He is certainly not trying to be part of the solution.

  • FiveFifty550

    I can’t believe you missed the opportunity to thrown in a “cats pajamas” reference when writing of the new addition to the Garzas!

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! And I forgot to use it yesterday, too. I even have a new picture …

      • Fishin Phil

        I tried to put pajamas on my cat one time. I still have scars.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          (I don’t …)

  • Edward

    Assuming Garza is healthy and pitches out the rest of the season ok, what kind of return would we expect in the offseason?

  • North Side Irish

    I was disappointed in what the Cubs got for Dempster, but I think they did the best they could. Texas picking up his salary really hurt the return though.

    I was shocked that they got Vizcaino in the Maholm/Johnson deal. Love that they are taking this risk and I think it is very much worth taking.

    Confused by the return for Soto. Could have some upside, but I thought he was worth more than that, especially with the Cubs paying his salary. Also confused why Baker and Camp are still on the team…seems like they should have had value to a contender somewhere.

    And I’m glad they didn’t trade Garza for below the value they set for him. Keep him, let him prove he’s healthy and they will still get good value for him this winter.

    All in all, mixed results, but I think they did OK with the hand they were dealt.

  • Mrcub1958

    Brett, did you note how the Cubs did on money given these trades? Net effect Theo/Jed would report to Tommy? Thanks.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Haven’t written about it yet, but the gist is: the Rangers took Dempster’s remaining salary (Cubs save about $6 million), the Cubs took on all or most of Maholm’s remaining salary (about $2 million), and the Cubs took on Soto’s remaining salary (about $2 million). Johnson wasn’t making enough for it to make a huge difference how the salary was handled. So, on the balance, the Cubs actually saved a little bit of money, which is a side bonus.

      • MoneyBoy

        Boy oh boy Brett … just my opinion, but the prospects received, esp. when taking into account that TX picked up the rest of the $$, seems pretty darn good!! One guy blocked by Olt and a pitcher with decent upside!!!

        • MightyBear

          I’m with MB. At first I was disappointed. But after calming down and further reflection, I think the FO did a fantastic job considering their hands were tied.

  • Tommy

    I am happier with our return after reading Jonathan Mayo’s updated info on the guys we got. 3 of them are now listed in his top 20 of the Cubbie farm system. I’ll take that! The 3rd baseman we got is ranked higher than Vitters!

  • Crockett

    What I’d like to know is if there was a Garza/DBacks deal heavily discussed. If there was, who was being discussed, how far did it progress, and why’d it fall apart?

    Brett…use your resources!

    Anyone else have info?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I know that, yes, it was discussed. Don’t know any of the other answers, but you can bet the short version is: the D-Backs wouldn’t give up as much as the Cubs wanted.

    • Spriggs

      According to the Phoenix sports radio (KTAR – the guy’s name escapes me), the D’backs and Cubs discussed Dempster and not Garza. Rumors said it was Garza at first, but that was cleared up to say it was Dempster and never Garza. There were no Garza/Upton discussions!

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        Garza/Upton was Buster Olney throwing stuff out there.

        The Cubs and D-Backs discussed both Garza and Dempster, which became mostly Dempster by the final few hours of the deadline. And then they stopped talking.

  • Kevin

    Hopefully Soriano clears waivers and we can negotiate a fair deal in return. The FO is focused and the Dempster speedbump will not alter thier destination.

    • Smitty

      Soriano will clear waivers, Kevin. Any team willing to take on his salary the next two years can have him, I am sure.
      That is why I wasn’t too upset about Alfonso not leaving yesterday. The FO has several days to make his trade happen.

      • EvenBetterNewsV2.0

        Yeah, it isn’t often I say this, but there isn’t a GM dumb or desperate enough to do that. It is universally known we are going to pay all but a couple million. No need to not take us up on that. There isn’t a lower level prospect that isn’t an impact prospect worth $35 million. That is the minimum we would probably pay.

  • clark addison

    Remember when Zambrano, Wood, and Prior were the anchors of the rotation, but the best we could do with position players was Patterson?

    Now it seems we’re strong on position players in the system, but no pitching.

    • Leroy K.


    • Myles

      I wouldn’t say “strong” yet. Castro is our best drafted/signed and developed player, and he’s great, sure. However, look at our lineup:

      1B Rizzo (traded)
      2B Barney (drafted 2007)
      SS Castro (signed 2006)
      3B Stewart/Valbuena (traded/claimed)
      LF Soriano (FA)
      CF DeJesus/Campana (FA/ drafted 2008)
      RF LaHair (claimed)
      C Clevenger/Castillo (drafted 2006/signed 2004 (17 years old))

      That’s a lot better than it has been, but still not as good as the really good teams.

    • MikeL

      Well, the Cubs were deep on position players and pitchers back then (I believe they had the #1 farm system in baseball in 2002)….Even so….the lineup consisting of Sammy, Todd Walker, Aramis, Lee, Patterson, Barrett, and Alou should’ve scored far more runs that it did…..injuries or no injuries….then we added Nomar at mid season and went into the season thinking we would have Wood, Prior, Z, Maddux……=0(….I just got sad…..Oh well, we just need to look forward to the next great cubs team!!!

      • DocPeterWimsey

        Not really: the 2004 team was near the top of the NL in slugging, but near the bottom of the league in OBP. (Baker’s penchant for playing low OBP guys like Womack over high OBP guys like Walker hurt the team more than his tendency to put fast low OBP guys like Patterson and Womack at the top of the order.) So, the Cubs wound up with middle-of-the-league OPS and middle-of-the-league runs-scored.

  • bbmoney

    This is probably in line with some of the comments above, but I read and saw the comments Olney and Stark made about the Cubs deadline and it made no sense. It’s like they picked their winners and losers by who helped their team the most for 2012…..which is kind of silly.

    The Cubs got a legit #2 starter prospect from a FA pitcher signing anyone could have had last offseason…and a scrappy Reed Johnson (love him, but I mean…its Reed Johnson). That equals terrific. Yes, he’s high risk, but the potential reward is huge. And frankly at the beginning of the year anything we could have gotten for Maholm was a bonus……Vizcaino for maholm would have be laughed at to start the year.

    The Cubs got a 3b prospect who by some is considered a fringe top 150 prospect for 2 months of Ryan Dempster. To me that’s a solid return without even considering the “organizational” pitching prosepect with pinpoint control we got.

    Soto was never going to bring much unless he was awesome this year and we got a hard throwing pitching prospect with some upside plus a reliever who probably will never make the show, but whatever we just need arms.

    Not trading Garza wasn’t a disaster for the Cubs. I still think the FO wants to trade him, but extending him isn’t a terrible option. All in all I think the Cubs deadline went well. And if you combine that with some strong international signings and what most analysts say was a strong draft, I’d say rebuilding is right on track. And we’ll be spending money again soon on FA’s maybe not this year, but I bet the purse strings open up in 2014 and beyond. Its just nice to have a plan.

    • Tommy

      My sentiments exactly, bbmoney.

  • Kansas Cubs Fan

    I don’t understand the desire to get rid of Garza. Sure he would bring back a bunch of good prospects, but isn’t he the type of pitcher we are going for? Young, under team control, and a “top of the rotation” starter. The only way I wouldn’t be upset is if the Cubs just get blown away this winter.

  • Pingback: The Illness Keeping Gerardo Concepcion Out Over the Last Month? Mono | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Eric

    Congrats to the Garza’s for doing their part in doubling the world’s population. Hey maybe when all the fish and wild animals are gone, we can eat eachother.

    • Flashfire

      The fish will be wiped out, but we’re just fine on chickens and cows. Fish suffer from a problem called the tragedy of the commons that other food sources don’t. So, don’t worry there.