Quantcast

Yesterday, the Marlins – well, technically, folks reporting about the Marlins – made clear that they’re open to moving shortstop Yunel Escobar, who is under contract through 2013 for just $5 million, plus a couple $5 million club options in 2014 and 2015. I mentioned his availability in the round-up last evening, but reserved further discussion for a time when the Cubs were actually connected to Escobar in a credible rumor.

Well, it didn’t take long.

Per Jon Heyman, the Cubs – together with the Athletics, Rays, and Yankees – have reached out to the Marlins and checked in on Escobar. Jayson Stark takes it a step further, and says those four teams are “definitely in on” Escobar, whom the Marlins would “clearly like to move.”

If we were playing “one of these things is not like the others,” the answer should easily smack you over the head: each of the other three teams could clearly use a shortstop, which is Escobar’s natural position. The A’s and Rays simply need a shortstop, and the Yankees could use Escobar at short while shifting Derek Jeter, who is overcoming a broken ankle (and aging), elsewhere. Of course, with Alex Rodriguez undergoing hip surgery, and expected to miss upwards of half of next season, the Yankees could use Escobar all over the left side of the infield. (Buster Olney says, however, that the Yankees are not interested in Escobar.)

So, if teams looking for a shortstop are connected to Escobar, what are the Cubs doing there in that list? After all, Starlin Castro emerged last year as a better-than-average defensive shortstop. He’s not being moved any time soon.

Theo Epstein yesterday said that the Cubs may have to be creative to fill third base, including by potentially bringing in someone who hasn’t ever played a full season at third base. Could he have been referring to Escobar?

It’s certainly possible. Obviously the other possibility would be a Starlin Castro trade, which seems extremely unlikely (here’s where you freak out and say things about a larger deal involving Giancarlo Stanton and Castro, and I say things like, “nah, not likely”), or a Darwin Barney trade, with Escobar slotting in at second base. Again, that seems unlikely.

Third base is the much more likely answer. Indeed, the Marlins have already told Escobar that, with Adeiny Hechavarria in the fold, they plan to play Escobar at third base in 2013. But I’m not sure if that really puts the Cubs in any better position to acquire him. Escobar is obviously at his highest value when playing shortstop, and he’s been adequate there defensively for years now. The teams looking at him as their shortstop for the next three years – particularly cost-conscious teams like the A’s and Rays – would seem to be willing to offer much more in trade than would the Cubs. Because of Escobar’s uber-friendly contract, offering to “take on” all of his contract isn’t going to get the Cubs anywhere, because every team would be willing to take on that deal.

So, it would be a matter of the Cubs outbidding everyone else in prospects. And when they’re bidding on a third baseman, while other teams are bidding on a shortstop, it would seem that other teams – with better farm systems – could take the Cubs out. The cost on Escobar is likely to be high.

As for the merits of Escobar, he had a down year in 2012, hitting just .253/.300/.344 (but that was driven largely by an unusually low .273 BABIP). Before that, he’d had an OPS+ over 100 in each of his five seasons except one, and over 112 in three of them. His WAR since 2007: 2.6, 3.6, 4.4, 2.0, 4.2, 1.8. His career OBP is .353. There’s a lot of upside and offensive value there.

Ah, but with Escobar, there’s that “other” stuff. He was suspended this year after writing a homophobic slur on his eye black, he had trouble staying on Bobby Cox’s good side in Atlanta, and reportedly had some teammate issues in the clubhouse while in Atlanta. There is unseen risk there, about which I’m totally ignorant to speculate. But it’s something the Cubs are undoubtedly considering.

We’ll see if this goes anywhere. Remember: this front office is smart enough to check in on everyone. That they reached to the Marlins about Escobar should be wholly unsurprising given his contract, his availability, and their need at third base. That doesn’t mean a trade is forthcoming.

  • http://www.frenchrocks.net Ian Afterbirth

    I don’t want no homophobic-eyeblack-wearing player on my team. I’m serious.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      There are a lot of people, I think, who will feel that way.

      • JulioZuleta

        I’ll add that you should keep this in context. While it definitely showed poor judgment to wear that…on your face…on TV…, the phrase itself does not have quite as bad a connotation in Spanish as it does is English. In the 2 Spanish speaking countries I’ve lived in, it’s thrown around much more freely than its English “translation”, the 3 letter ‘F’ word. It just doesn’t have that same feeling of hate in Spanish. Again, not makig excuses, it was INCREDIBLY dumb, just a little context.

    • deej34

      First let me make it clear that I think the eye black incident was horrible should not be tolerated…. but it wasn’t homophobic.

      “It is derogatory, but it’s not necessarily homophobic,” said Maria Cristina Cuervo, a professor of Spanish at the University of Toronto. – from an article written at the time.

      Young players do stupid things, look no further than bryce harper blowing a kiss at a pitcher…. I wouldn’t black list him for life over it.

      • Frank

        Not even that. It’s a deragatory term, but it’s no indication that he’s homophobic. Chances are he is: in that culture, it’s not as widely accepted as it is in ours. This being said, when he used that word, in that culture, as it was in ours not too long ago it’s basically the same as calling someone a fucker or an ass hole. Not acceptable, but it’s not worth dragging the guy down for.

        While I don’t condone such behavior, society does put too much stock in political correctness. It’s one thing when someone like Michael Richards or Mel Gibson go on some bizarre, hate filled rant. However, it’s quite another when someone lets a deragatory term accidently slip. Maybe it calls for diciplinary action of some kind, but it should’t mean that the player or celebrity in question should have a stigma attached to them.

        Hell, Delmon Young did a lot worse than Escobar, and he seemingly got a slap on the wrist.

      • Timmy

        This guy paints derogatory comments on his face in front of tens of thousands of spectators. Is this guy sane to trade away top prospects for?

      • MikeL

        As a gay man, I cannot give him a pass on this one. I am pretty understanding and am forgiving when I hear someone yell homophobic slurs in the heat of an argument because I know they are not always meaning to direct it a homosexual nor did they truly intend to discriminate, so I understand. ainting a homophobic slur on his eye black means he thought about it ahead of time, knew what he was doing, knew what it would mean, and did it anyway. Saying, “Ooooooooh, he is just young….let it go.” NO!! We say that when kids don’t know any better, he did. IT WAS HOMOPHOBIC, and I am not crazy about the idea of him being near the Cubs. If he had written a racially charged slur on his eye black, I would’ve called it for what it was. I will be fair though….simply using a homophoic slur does not make one a homophobic bigot.

        • Pat

          Perhaps you should look up the definition of phobic or phobia. Just because the majority of people misue a word, it does not make that misuse correct.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett
            • Pat

              Please tell me you did not just use Wikipedia as a primary source. I understand what the accepted use of the word is. It is also incorrect.

              From Miriam Websters:

              irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

              Now keep in mind that the last two items are recently added since apparently most people are incapable of using the language as written. Please demonstrate how the eyeblack incident proves an aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

              • Kyle

                The principal of common usage dictates that the accepted use of the word cannot be incorrect.

                • Pat

                  Wow. So stupid people can never be wrong as long as they are in the majority? Actually that explains quite a bit.

                  • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                    If you don’t believe in the evolution of language, can I ask why you aren’t speaking in, for example, Middle English?

                    • Pat

                      Probably because I was not born in the 1200s, so that is not the language I learned. The big problem with the misuse of the term homophobic is that the word already had a definition, and a needed one. Originally it was meant to mean someone who was not bigoted against homosexuals (in regards to rights), but was somewhat uncomfortable around them in a social setting.

                      So it isn’t even like changing the meaning of celibacy from not getting married to also including not having sex (even though we had a perfectly good word in chastity to already describe that). In this case it is taking a word that had no evil connotations to it and attaching them.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                To go on a tangent on your tangent: Wikipedia is now widely accepted in academic circles as, in the aggregate, more reliable than paper-form encyclopedias. I know a thing or two about veracity.

                However, I didn’t use it as a primary source for anything. I used it to offer anyone who wanted it the collective, reasonably understood, and now widely-accepted meaning for homophobia – which, fortunately, includes multiple citations to primary sources, including Webster’s.

                This is not a fight I’m going to have. Whether your interest is merely about preserving the strictures of language (I, myself, want to climb up a wall when I hear people use “disinterested” to mean “uninterested,” even though the latter has now become an accepted definition for the former), or about something else, I’m just not interested in it.

                • Pat

                  Yes it is about the strictures of language, and the apparently lost ability so say what one means and mean what one says. I apologize if I expect a certain amount of literacy from what is a generally intelligent community

                  • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                    I use homophobia to mean what I said it meant – does that make me illiterate, or you obstinate?

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      Never mind. I’m sticking with the original thought to just let it go – we disagree on something completely and totally unrelated to the Cubs and baseball. We’ll just move on.

                  • MikeL

                    Pat,

                    Quit arguing over the use of a word, that wasn’t even the point (not to mention that it appears that you like to look at words in the dictionary and throw out parts of the definition that are found in the dictionary until you get the definition that you want). The bottom line is he used a slur and it was an act of discrimination. If he wants to claims that he was not directing the slur toward anyone and did not understand why people were so upset, he is ignorant. Plain and simple.

                    • Pat

                      Wait, what!! An act of discrimination? Holy shit, my head is going to explode. Does anybody bother to learn the meaning of words before throwing them around?

                    • MikeL

                      What’s wrong, Pat?? Making up definitions for words again? Is that why your head is going to explode?

                    • MikeL

                      Pat,

                      Can you do me a favor? Look up the definition of the word “faggot” for me.

                    • DarthHater

                      Escobar did something that demonstrated to everyone with a brain and a heart that he is a complete asshole.

                      Some folks here with a brain and a heart made comments understandably taking exception to what Escobar had done.

                      Pat then seized the opportunity to lead the discussion down a dead-end alley of irrelevant and pointless quibbling about the meaning of words and the merits of Wikipedia, thereby demonstrating to everyone with a brain and a heart that he, too, is a complete asshole.

                    • MikeL

                      I just find it hysterical that Pat thinks it is ok for him to cherry pick certain definitions.

                    • MikeL

                      Pat,

                      I do have to admit I had a brain fart….I just realized earlier that I used discriminatory when I actually meant derogatory.

                      I was trying to say that Escobar used a word that could be considered to be derogatory.

                      So you caught me on that one…..had a brain fart.

                • Cubbie Blues

                  A tangent of your tangent to his tangent (but not really a tangent of his tangent), I receantly heard of a Professor accepting a student citing another student (at least it was one of the top kids in the class).

              • ReiCow

                He used a homosexual slur (and not in an ironic or “bonding” way). This implies he has a hatred for homosexuals, hence aversion (else, he wouldn’t use a slur). Thus his eye-black message indicates he is homophobic.

                Moo.

    • Dougy D

      So you are saying he fears gay people? I don’t know what the slur was, can anyone clue me in?

      • deej34
      • fromthemitten

        he wrote the spanish equivalent of “you are a faggot” on his eye black

        • fromthemitten

          the way people are defending it is the same way people defend rappers for saying “faggot” (“he doesn’t mean homosexuals he means faggots totally different!”) or a white dude using the “n-word” without meaning people of color. what do all of these people have in common? they’re ignorant motherfuckers.

          • Dougy D

            I still don’t think that there is any evidence to show that he fears gay people. A bigot, maybe.

            I don’t listen to rap ‘music’, and I am not familiar with rappers saying that gay slur. It doesn’t matter if a white person says it, or a black person says it, or any other race for that matter, the “N-word” is the “N-word.”

            I don’t think that it is a good idea to pay anyone $5 million dollars that is stupid enough to do something like what Escobar did.

      • cRAaZYHORSE

        That word is a real bad word in his native tongue. faggot does not come close – queer maybe

        • MikeL

          Well here is the thing, the original definition of “faggot” is that is “bundle of sticks or twigs”. Now, that sounds very harmless, right? Here is the thing though you have to understand about the use of “faggots” back in the day: There was a time when people used to put twigs underneath a person’s finger nails and then set on fire. During the holocaust, homosexuals were branded with pink triangles, had twigs put underneath their finger nails, and set on fire. So when you call someone a “faggot” you aren’t just talking about the twig or stick, you are talking about the actual act. You are saying that someone’s life is so meaningless that they should have twigs put underneath their finger nails and set on fire. Burned. I think everyone should think twice about throwing around that slur and then coming back to say “it is just a word”. It isn’t just a word.

          • daveyrosello

            I still think people are waaaay too sensitive and outrageously-outraged over the usage of words that have multiple meanings to different cultures or age groups. For example, some oldtimers like my grandfather still call a cigarette a fag sometimes. It’s an old-fashioned name for a smoke. My grandfather is hardly a homophobe, and someone that would think so, just because he used the WORD fag, well, they really should lighten up a little. Life’s too short.

            • MikeL

              First, Escobar wasn’t referring to a cigarette…..You know that.

              Secondly, I am gay. I have been called a hell of a lot names, probably more than you I have had doors slammed in my face, and lost friendships simply for being gay. I brush them off when I hear them and I am ready to shoot down any person who throws slurs at me. Until you are discriminated against or until you have a slur thrown at you and the person throwing it at you actually means it (I am not talking about having a fight with your brother or best friend) then don’t tell me to lighten.

              Ok?

              Thanks.

          • Carew

            I admit, being a teenager, I have used that term to friends, but I mean nothing by it, just immature. But holy hell..with that meaning, I feel bad.

            • MikeL

              Carew,

              Don’t feel bad, a lot of people don’t know that definition of the word and I can tell you would never use wish that type of punishment on your friends or even with those you might have argued with. I didn’t even know the true meaning behind it until recently.

            • Carew

              Worse then I originally do, know what I mean?

              • MikeL

                I hear you….its all good :)

    • http://www.frenchrocks.net Ian Afterbirth

      Geeze.
      I just meant to say that I don’t want to root for someone who is obviously a jerk.

  • terencemann

    Escobar’s personality has reached the point where I don’t know if I want him on the Cubs.

  • Ben

    Agree with the other comments. We don’t need a clubhouse cancer, or someone who sets a bad example for other players. I’d rather resign Stewart, who seems like a good guy, rather than have a little offensive upside with someone like Escobar.

  • http://www.sportsdanny.com Dan

    It’s an asset

  • Jack Weiland

    Supremely logical take, as always.

  • Fastball

    sounds like Milton Bradley the 2nd. We all know how that worked out.
    Who knows what the story is behind all that. Lot’s of guys don’t like each other
    though. He isn’t trying to win a popularity contest he’s there to play baseball and do
    a job. We definitely do not need a cancer though. I hope we can put together a better deal for a solid 3b. Maybe package Soriano and Marmol together along with Jackson, Vitters, and McNutt or someone like that to the Tigers for the Castellanos kid or to KC. We can send prospects and Major League talent for the right piece of Theo wants it bad enough.

    • ssckelley

      I would do this deal in a heartbeat, any other junk we could throw the Tigers way to make this happen? Perhaps if the Cubs included Junior Lake or maybe Hayden Simpson to sweeten the pot.

  • deej34

    Isn’t Barney’s natural position SS? And he transitioned to 2B very well. Any chances he could slide to 3B and be strong defensively? Or is that just too weak of a bat to have on third?

    • abe

      the 3rd base bat usually hits for power…

    • Nate

      I don’t think you want to change someone’s position the year after they win a Gold Glove…

      • Noah

        I also think the one knock on Barney defensively is that his arm is only average. So you’d be de-emphasizing his best asset (his great fundamentals and footwork up the middle of the field) and emphasizing his worst (arm strength).

        • Marcel91

          this exactly noah

  • cheryl

    Take a look elsewhere. He’s got too much baggage.

  • ssckelley

    Going after this guy makes no sense to me at all. Do the Cubs want someone who only hits slightly better than Darwin Barney playing third base? I would rather see the Cubs go with Vitters & Valbuena at third than have to trade prospects to acquire this guy.

    • Drew7

      A career OPS of .743 is *slightly* better than Barney?

      • ssckelley

        Last year his OPS was .644 while Barneys was .653, Escobars best years were when he was with the Braves. If you can assure me that he would come here and hit like he did back in 2009 then we would have something to argue about.

  • Matt

    Yunel could always be a piece that we package with others for a trade to another team.

    • ssckelley

      So we acquire this guy via trade, give up prospects to get him, just to turn around and trade him again?

      Wait a minute….you might be on to something…..the Cubs are bundling in Castro to acquire Stanton!!!!!

      • whiteflag

        Don’t think the Marlins will want Castro’s contract. Second, I don’t think you sign a player to a long term deal just to trade him few months later. Unless maybe you are the Marlins and even they waited close to a year.

  • Walter Sobchak

    Orioles are set on adding a power bat outfielder…..its a bona fide contender in Balt…..get on the phone and how bout starting something like a soriano for britton deal?

    • TonyP

      Sori turned down one trade to Balt already…

      • Njriv

        Wasn’t that before they were contenders?

        • TonyP

          Last summer I believe.

  • Timmy

    That guy is a homophobic underachiever. Man, Theo makes one bad decision after another and they all lead to losing.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      He’s obviously a homophobe, and I personally don’t see the need to keep such people in baseball. That said, it probably would kick out 50+% of the ballplayers.

      However, he is not an “underachiever” save by people who projected way too much power in his future. Due to his lack of power, his BA is at the mercy of BABiP, which swings especially wildly for singles hitters. He’s actually pretty good at drawing walks: he’s drawn walks in 9% of his PAs over his career.

      • Dougy D

        I think that you guys might be using the word homophobe as carelessly as Escobar used whatever he said on his eye black. I don’t think that homophobe is necessarily the proper term to use as he hasn’t shown a fear of homosexuals (as far as I am aware), I think that bigot would be the correct term here.

        • DocPeterWimsey

          X-phobe = bigot. Hatred and fear are different sides of the same coin (or die) in humans. So, sexists both hate and fear strong women. Klansmen both hate and fear blacks (and Catholics and Jews and pretty much everyone else who does not pronounce America’s favorite sport as “Fubaaaaawllll”). Etc., etc.

          • Pat

            Doc, are you using a special dictionary they only gave out to some people?

        • Timmy

          I accept this analysis. Either way, I don’t see how the team would benefit from trading for a lazy, rude, ignorant ballplayer. Wrigley is right by Boys Town and those are some of our most important fans.

  • jstraw

    He’s also a flopper. A really crappy flopper. Just…no.

  • Stinky Pete

    There is unseen risk there, about which I’m totally ignorant to speculate. But it’s something the Cubs are undoubtedly considering.

    Brilliantly worded, Brett.

    I think in our hyper media age it is way too easy to hear about Escobar’s antics and assume he is a gay hating, flag burning nazi. Maybe he lost a goofy bet and agreed to wear it on the field. Maybe he is filled with hate towards gays. Who knows?
    I recall liking Tim Hardaway (When I followed basketball, ugh.) because he played hard, did well for my fantasy team and had good things to say after the games. Then one day he makes very anti gay comments and everybody is shocked.

    I’m not sayin’ go after him or don’t go after him. I’m saying we as fans shouldn’t assume we know this guy.

  • bwitty

    Could the Cubs advantage be a willingness to take Nolasco, too?

  • ssckelley

    Most of you are ignoring the most obvious reason why the Cubs should not want him, look at the numbers! His bat is barely respectable for a shortstop, not what you want for a third baseman. If the guy was even a decent hitter then we could debate the personality issues.

    • Drew7

      Are you blatantly disregarding every year before 2012?

      • ssckelley

        You mean before 2010? You can make a case his numbers were decent for a shortstop in 2011, but those are numbers you do not want for a 3rd baseman.

        • Drew7

          “You can make a case his numbers were decent for a shortstop in 2011, but those are numbers you do not want for a 3rd baseman.”

          Escobar posted a .290/.369/.413 slash-line and a wOBA of .348 in 2011.
          The average SS in 2012 was at .256/.310/.375 and .300.
          The average 3B in 2012 was at .262/.323/.415 and .320.

          1) Those number are more than “decent” for a SS.
          2) Considering that Cubs’ 3rd basemen produced a robust .596 OPS and .266 wOBA, I think those *are* numbers I’d want at 3B.

    • MightyBear

      Did you look at the numbers for Cubs third baseman last year? Take that into account. Theo and the boys wouldn’t even consider this if there were better options anywhere. That being said I wouldn’t get Escobar because of his personality issues. We cleared out Bradley, Zambrano, etc. We don’t need any more of that crap.

      • ssckelley

        I have and I still feel like the Cubs can do better than Escobar for a 3rd basemen, especially one the Cubs would have to trade prospects to get.

        • Alou and Vinegar

          Valbuena, Stewart, Vitters, Keppinger,etc. etc. don’t have the bat to play third either. The reason to not want Escobar is not on the field, but off the field.

          • ssckelley

            Stewart, Valbuena, Vitters, and Keppinger do not cost the Cubs prospects either.

  • fromthemitten

    if you google “yunel escobar” and “clubhouse cancer” you get over two hundred thousand results

    JUST SAYING

    • http://www.casualcubsfan.com hansman1982

      if you google “Yunel Escobar and kittens” you get 1.1 million hits

      • Kubphan82

        It’s crazy but “yunel Escobar” and “hero” gets 1.8 million…

        (I wanted to play too)

    • WV23

      Not true.

      If you Google “yunel escobar” and “clubhouse cancer,” you get 2,810 results.

      If you Google yunel escobar clubhouse cancer, you get more than 200,000.

  • Riggs

    Question Brett…I have noticed that a lot of playoff and WS teams are lead by players who have played organized ball in the US. This is not a knock on players from other countries. However, take a look at WS/playoff teams and most are led by players who have played organized ball in the United States. Do you think there is anything to this or am I just looking at this all wrong.

  • Ivy Walls

    ambivalent here, sounds and looks like a platoon at 3B with possible Stewart and part of bigger trade with Marmol being dangled, Cubs could acquire Nolasco and throw in Vitters to Marlins and possibly another throw in.

    He also looks like a rent-a-player for 3-4 months and then trade him off to a contender who needs a SS

  • fromthemitten

    I’ll be especially angry if they give up a top 25 prospect for him. shit I think giving up Hayden Simpson would even piss me off

  • rbreeze

    I think the Cubs are touching base with just about every team and checking out all of the possible avenues to improve the team. I don’t see Escobar as an ideal fit for us for a lot of reasons. I don’t think that they would want the negative publicity that Escobar might bring to Wrigley. But Theo and Jed are looking at all of the possibilities. So far the only movements orchestrated in Nashville by Theo and Jed end up flushed down the toilet!!!

  • Melrosepad

    Still think we should look towards the Giants and Conor Gillespie. He is blocked by Panda in the majors and they got Belt at first, so they aren’t moving Panda over at the moment. His numbers are better than Vitters and could be a nice piece going forward. Why not check with them about Marmol and a minor piece?

  • ReiCow

    We are a rebuilding club, so I see no need to add bad character guys. It isn’t like we need them to get over a hump or something.. why bring the headache?

    Moo.

  • JodyDavis

    I would not really be happy just picking him up for the 5m, much less giving up any young players to acquire the right to pay him the 5m. He is just not that good, especially if you do not need a SS.

  • Smackydoodle

    Please nooooooooooooooooo. I used to live in ATL, and even tho I’m not a Braves fan, I was glad to see his smug face go away. I now live in Chicago, please don’t bring him back to me!

  • cubfanincardinalland

    The thing that worries me is Bobby Cox shipped him out of town with the Braves, and made a point of saying he was not a team player. Cox was not a hard manager to play for.

    • ssckelley

      What the Braves got in return for Escobar supports your point, they got an aging veteran Alex Gonzalez.

  • Kubphan82

    BRETT,

    What would it take to perform this same move with A.Cabrera? Trade Soriano, eat cash, and send two prospects (of what quality?). Send Barney and two prospects (of what caliber?).

    I heard a rumor that a major leaguer and two prospects were offered for him yesterday… Te Cubs?

    • Noah

      I doubt the Indians would have interest in Soriano. They are entering rebuild mode. And the prospects in either of those trades would probably have to be of pretty high quality. At the very least I think Brett Jackson would have to be involved as the center piece. And while I’d do a straight Darwin Barney/Brett Jackson for Asdrubal Cabrera trade, I’m not sure how much I’d be willing to add to that, although I’m not a big fan of Cabrera.

      • Kubphan82

        I just figured they could take the “free” power while rebuilding. Not all teams rebuild the same way.

        I’ve heard they want 3-4 players… And previously was offered a big league pitcher and a couple prospects, so if the Indians were interested I’d do Barney/BJax/Lake/Raley and maybe a throw in coming our way..

    • Kubphan82

      (Not sure why “Brett” was in all caps, my bad… I wasn’t yelling)

    • ssckelley

      It could have been the Cubs. The trade was for a major league pitcher and 2 prospects. The team being traded to was going to move him to a different position. According to the KFFL site the deal fell through when the Indians asked for a 3rd prospect.

  • ssckelley

    How about Scott Kazmir? Just read this on KFFL:

    “Free-agent SP Scott Kazmir (Angels) is reportedly throwing 90-94 mph in Puerto Rico, and multiple teams are interested in him.”

    Could the Cubs be one of the “multiple” teams interested?

    • willis

      That would be a move I would support. Minor league deal with a ST invite. If he is really healthy and touching 94, why not?

  • willis

    I was at the game where he tried to start shit with Lilly a few years ago. Sitting right behind home in the first row. It was awesome. He got pissed about Lilly hitting him, started saying a bunch of God knows what, Lilly’s response (clear as could be from my seats)…”Bring it on you pussy!” I laughed.

    The guy is a dick. His upside and cost intrigue me though. As bad as that sounds. I definitely wouldn’t offer anything of real value for him…too risky.

  • XavierGunz

    Do the cubs really want to take the chance on another nutjob ala MBradley? I mean hes def due for a comeback year from last years bad one and idk too much about him but from reading these posts, if hes a homophobe he would be in for a shock. Wrigleyville is pretty gay a mile North. lol. No disrespect or not poking fun but its the truth. If he is maybe reformed or something maybe….maybe we could take a chance on him. (wait, is that an ABBA song???) lol. Go Cubs!!!!

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+