Lukewarm Stove: The Cubs Are Reportedly “Open for Business”

stoveAlthough it should come as no surprise – hell, it wouldn’t have been a total surprise back in April – Buster Olney reports that the Chicago Cubs are officially in sell mode. That, according to “rival talent evaluators” who say the Cubs are communicating that they are “open for business.”

The Cubs will listen to offers on any player, as is this front office’s (wise) policy. Specifically, Olney lists Matt Garza, Scott Feldman, Kevin Gregg, James Russell, Alfonso Soriano, David DeJesus (after he gets back from injury), and Nate Schierholtz as pieces the Cubs have that could interest other teams.

Although it’s good to know your place in the market – there is no consternation for the Cubs about whether to buy or sell – I wouldn’t expect a huge number of moves until we get into July. It’s an appealing argument that you’d get better value for a Scott Feldman now than in July because he’d offer his new team more starts this year before reaching free agency. But that argument is countered by the fact that, unlike the Cubs, many teams don’t yet know if they are buying or selling. That restricts the possible market for a Scott Feldman, and it would behoove the Cubs to wait until the market more fully develops (and teams get a little more desperate).

That said, if a team came along with an over-the-top offer today for one of the Cubs’ sellable pieces, it’s not like they’ll say no. The Cubs are open for business. It’s useful for Buster Olney’s sources to confirm it, but we’ve known it to be true for some time now.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

128 responses to “Lukewarm Stove: The Cubs Are Reportedly “Open for Business””

  1. King Jeff

    Theo pretty much said a similar thing on the radio yesterday. Something along the lines of “the phones have been ringing since the end of the draft.”

  2. kyle

    do you really think they will trade Russell?

    1. CubFan Paul

      Theo&Co would want a Sean Marshall like package.

      1. gocatsgo2003

        … which makes sense given that Russell’s stats are pretty similar and he’s younger and likely cheaper than Marshall.

        1. BluBlud

          I think the Cubs get more for Russell then they did for marshall. Russell has more control left I believe.

          1. DReese

            But Marshall was better (has better stuff)

            1. gocatsgo2003

              It’s pretty darn close — Russell has been pretty ridiculous this year (outside of save opportunities, it should be noted).

    2. mdavis

      if they get a great offer, why not?

      1. Kyle

        If that offer doesn’t include some near-ready MLB pitching that can help in 2014, trading any pitchers under contract for 2014 is basically a premature white flag.

        1. gocatsgo2003

          Because… why exactly? It could very well indicate a willingness to sign an arm long-term this offseason or bring up some of the young guys. Either way, it is definitely part of the consideration in shopping pitchers with more than 2013 on their contract. Besides, I think this team is a little further away from being a contender than one or two middle relievers.

          1. Kyle

            Because we are almost terminally short on arms for next season already.

            We don’t have any young guys worth bringing up and we have about five worthwhile pitchers under contract for 2014. We’re going to need a miracle offseason with pitching as it is.

    3. gcheezpuff

      Let’s play make a deal…. I just proposed this at MLBTrade Rumors too… Russell and Gregg to the Tigers for Porcello and Casey Crosby.. Maybe Cubs throw in another lower level guy. Smyly could move to the Tigers Rotation with Russell replacing him in the Pen… adding Russell also minimizes the risk of the trade by adding future value and allowing the Tigers to take a chance on Gregg as the closer. Cubs get pitching for now and the future which is what they are looking for.

      1. Michael

        It’s not that bad of a deal honestly.

        1. Edwin

          For the Tigers, it’s terrible.

      2. Oswego chris

        Would you make that trade if you were the Tigers?….

        1. MichiganGoat

          No they’d be interested in Gregg if Papelbon isn’t available but they are in WIN NOW mode and will give up plenty to get him. Russell maybe but not for anything exciting.

      3. Edwin

        I don’t see how this helps the Tigers. They trade a young pitcher who has just taken huge strides this season and their #6 prospect going into this season, and in return they get a complete wildcard rental in Gregg, and a good young RP in Russell. Any gain they get from upgrading their bullpen is immeadiately lost be decreasing their starting pitching.

        1. gcheezpuff

          You gotta give value to get value. Look what the Cubs got for Marshall and with Russell being younger and cheaper he arguably has more value. The Tigers need a closer and have to pay for it… Crosby is a top 10 in a week system.. and I don’t understand your perceived downgrade in rotation. At the beginning of the season many saw Smyly as the favorite over Porcello for the the 5th starter spot. Trading Porcello allows them to move Smyly to the roatation where he belongs.I could see the Cubs adding a lower piece though.

          1. Kyle

            Porcello is much, much better than Travis Wood in terms of trade value.

            1. gcheezpuff

              Yes… but the Cubs got more then Travis Wood. The 2nd base prospect was Legit and Sappalt was more highly regarded at the time of the trade. Plus, maybe I am reaching a little, but trade deadline deals usually produce higher returns if the trade partner is desperate enough… Tigers need a closer and other options would cost more in $$$ and prospects. Not saying it happens, but value wise, I think this is in the wheel house.

              1. Kyle

                That’s all well and good, but you aren’t getting a young, borderline dominant starter with a great pedigree for a couple of bullpen scraps. You’re asking for gold coins and giving up nickels, trade deadline or not. It’s not in the same zip code as the wheelhouse.

                1. gocatsgo2003

                  Uh… which “borderline dominant” Rick Porcello have you been watching this year?

                  1. Kyle

                    The one with the 2.98 xFIP

                    1. gocatsgo2003

                      To which I would counter with an increased HR/FB%, depressed LOB%, etc. He’s clearly throwing his curveball much more often and better this year, but we shall see if this is the year he’s finally turned the corner.

                      Either way, this whole conversation is moot because they are also all the reasons the Tigers are going to hold onto him.

                    2. Kyle

                      Are you aware that HR/FB% and LOB% are two stats which are known to be highly volatile and not particularly predictive? Meaning that those stats are generally attributed to variance and not the pitcher’s performance.

                  2. hansman1982

                    You give him his last year’s HR/9 and you get REALLY close to 2008 Cliff Lee.

                2. 70'scub

                  Add Barney?

              2. TonyP

                Torreyes and Sappelt are nothing more than replacement level players at best.

                1. Scotti

                  Torreyes is a very legit prospect (very young for his league and a lifetime .315+ hitter). Sappelt is meh.

                  1. TonyP

                    He hit well in A and lower but in A+ he hit .264 and at AA this year he is at .262….. Maybe he turns it around and becomes something but I just don’t see it.


                    1. Cizzle

                      You’re giving up on a 20 year old in AA, who despite being extremely young for the league, still has a .700+ OPS?

                    2. TonyP

                      I wouldn’t say, gave up on him but I don’t expect much more than bench player. I hope I’m wrong. (I should note that I’m pessimistic of all prospects until proven wrong). Prospects flame out at an alarming rate…….

                    3. TonyP

                      Over/Under on current minor leaguers that become above replacement levels starters for at least 5 years????????????

                    4. Luke

                      He started High A in a nasty slump. Check his first half vs second half splits.

          2. Edwin

            I don’t think the Tigers would recieve nearly enough in value, and would be giving up way too much in value in this deal. For the cost of a good young cost controlled MLB pitcher and a decent pitching prospect, the only real upgrade would be whatever they get out of Kevin Gregg. Which easily could be nothing. Russell’s production in the bullpen would offset the lost production from moving Smyly to the starting rotation. The only future value the Tigers get would be Russell, but that’s probably offset by losing the future value of Porcello and Crosby.

            1. gcheezpuff

              You’re missing the Win Now reason for the trade. Tigers are going for it and their biggest weakness is the back of the bullpen. The trade gains them a closer and a left handed set-up man. The point of the deal would be a push to win this season and that definitely has value tied to it. The Tigers also have to beat any competition making offers on Greg and Russell and I would have to imagine both will draw interest. This isn’t like an off season deal where both clubs are considering long term gains, the Tigers would clearly be stresses in season implications. The deal would gain them a closer and lose them virtually nothing in regards to this season as Russell would replace Smyly in the Pen and Smyly would replace Porcello in the rotation. Russell being a young cost control LHP with experience and success helps mitigate the lose of Porcello. I am not saying Russell = Porcello. I am say under all things considered, both teams could benefit, Cubs in the future, Tigers in season.

              1. Edwin

                I understand where you’re coming from. The Tigers are in Win Now mode, and they need bullpen help. However, the trade you’re proposing really only nets them Kevin Gregg, in terms of current season value. Smyly would replace Porcello in the rotation, and Russell would replace Smyly in the bullpen, leaving Gregg as the only real actual upgrade to the bullpen.

                Gregg has done well so far in a small sample size, but for his career he’s been pretty bad. I don’t think teams will just ignore the fact that there was a good reason the Cubs were able to pick Gregg up off the scrap heap.

                I think the Tigers would be giving up way too much future value for very little in current value.

              2. Kyle

                Even if we go with the idea that the Tigers should only care about Win Now to the degree that they’d take an extremely lopsided deal, if Porcello were on the market, plenty of other teams would offer them more win now than Gregg and Russell for him.

                1. Gcheezpuff

                  Agreed, but keep in mind The Tigers are buyers and not the sellers. Porcello would be the asking price not the shopped. Sure if the Tigers shopped Porcello in the off season he would be worth more, but right now the market for back end bull pen help for buyers might be high. The market will dictate the price buyers have to pay for deadline deals. The price of Gregg and Russell could very well equate to Porcello if that ends up being the best option available to the Tigers as the market shapes out. If I am Theo it is definitely what I ask for. The tigers system doesn’t have much else.

      4. Michael

        But why stop at just that deal why not trade a lower end prospect along with Russell, Garza, and Gregg for Castellanos and Porcello.

        1. hansman1982

          There we go, back to Castellanos + a pitcher.

          1. Michael

            It was a joke

            1. hansman1982

              So was mine.

        2. someday...2015?

          Castellanos is more then likely untouchable. The Tigers refused a trade that would of netted them Gio Gonzalez a few years back because they didn’t want to lose Castellanos. I doubt they’d be interested in a half year of Garza for a guy they seem to have no interest in parting with.

          1. Michael

            Oh yeah where is he going to play right now just curious. He is not untouchable

      5. Kyle

        OK. How do you propose we kidnap the Detroit GM’s children in order to get him to agree to such a lopsided deal? Does he even have children?

        1. gcheezpuff

          For the record.. I never considered including Castellanos. Cubs don’t have a match that makes sense for the Tigers best prospect.

      6. #1lahairfan

        Realistically it would Russel and Gregg for Smyly and Bryan Holaday.

  3. DReese

    Yes but wouldn’t it also make sense to trade Feldman now, so that he would not interfere with other available SP’s on the Cubs? Garza, Wood…

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Aside from the fact that they could very well be pushing Garza for an extension (remains to be seen) and would likely have to be bowled over to trade Wood at this point (26 years old, cost-controlled, left-handed, yada yada)… sure.

  4. Mr. Gonzo

    I’m losing hope that Soriano gets traded. Like a skank at the bar at closing time.. and we’ve been taking her home for so long, no one else will touch it. Soriano “ain’t” skanky, but his numbers are. I’m gonna go take a shower now…

    1. Oswego chris

      Here is what I say happens…Soriano finishes out this year with the Cubs…no one wants him…and next year…the FINAL year…the Cubs will eat the last 9 and let someone else play LF….have to

      1. Mr. Gonzo

        I’d put money on that.

      2. Cyranojoe

        Nope. He’ll start in LF next year if he’s not traded. They’ll drop him mid-season if he’s cold and the team is nevertheless in contention. That’s my guess.

  5. mak

    I wonder if they’ll deal guys like Vitters, Jackson and Lake. Would be out of the norm, but this FO doesn’t think inside the box.

    1. DReese

      I like all three of the guys you mentioned but I would say that Jackson and Vitters are pretty close to the “bust” category (meaning probably career bench players) but I think Lake still has a be an everyday regular.

    2. Edwin

      If they get dealt, I’d think it would be in the “throw in” category. None of those three are too exciting.

    3. Mick

      I doubt it, we’re about to start freeing up 40-man roster spots through trades so it’s not as if they’re a burden. We’ll probably see Jackson, Lake and whoever else get promoted post-deadline. If the youngsters actually play decent they’ll boost their trade value for later on.

  6. Justin

    I just hope the Cubs are able to package some of these dudes together. On their own, none of the Cubs tradeable players will bring back much of anything.

    1. mak

      Yea, the Cubs have maybe 6 or 7 guys teams would like a little on their own, but the Cubs will really have to pair them together to get anything worthwhile (especially given how deep their system is already — they TOR pitching prospects, and not a whole lot else).

  7. Jon

    No player on the Cubs should be untouchable.

    1. Stevie B

      Don’t say that Jon….I merely mentioned Castro s name, and the torches and pitchforks came out.

      1. Cheryl

        Maybe Castro is more expendable than we think. No, I’m not advocating his trade but other GMs may look at his current troubles, his team friendly contract and decide to try for him.

        1. Cyranojoe

          Theo/Jed would be fools to sell Castro at his lowest career value. You familiar with how the stock market works? Buy low, sell high?

          1. Kyle

            You know, it’s funny everyone always quotes that. The problem, just like the stock market, is that unless you can predict the future, you don’t know when the lows and highs are. We may have already passed the high for Castro’s value and we may be a long way from the low.

            1. Drew7

              Historical value, while not a predictor of future value, is the best tool we have in predicting future performance.

              On an individual level, we have already seen Castro thrive as a very young player at the highest level, and have a fairly large sample of that success.

              We also have the nearly universal upward trend of players who, at his age, have shown the level of success that Castro has. Can you name anyone, aside from Jim Fregosi, that showed that kind of success early-on, only to never repeat it (and remember: Templeton’s knees were pretty well shot by the time he was 25)?

              I think that, while we can’t be *certain* this is the low point for Castro, we have plenty of evidence to the contrary, Mr. Cubs Contrarian :)

              1. Kyle

                Can you name someone who had Castro’s success for three years then posted a .580 OPS in the fourth year?

    2. Patrick W.

      I think one of them has leprosy, so there’s that.

  8. Edwin

    I wonder if the Cubs will make Valbuena available. He’s been one of the best players on the Cubs so far, and even though he’s likely to regress some, he’s still cheap, and he’s done enough to demonstrate that maybe some of the change is real. To get good value you need to give up good value.

    1. mak

      I think he’s expendable, but I don’t think they’ll get the appropriate value (in terms of how much the Cubs FO values him). He’s going to have value going forward until one of their prospects really grabs the 3b job. Barney on the other hand…

  9. Kevin

    Thinking outside the box is exactly what this FO did in the draft and will no doubt continue to do going forward. We have a Dream Team FO that is proving their worth. The next 5 1/2 weeks should be interesting.

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Cue the outrage in 3, 2, 1…

    2. Rebuilding

      Not necessarily disagreeing with you that our FO is a Dream Team as I certainly hope so. But what about the draft was “outside the box”? I like some of the guys we picked up, but Bryant (to me anyway) was a no-brainer at #2, consensus was that we maybe reached in rounds #2 and #3 and got nice value in #4 and #5. I think it was a solid draft, but not sure how it proved anything since we won’t now for a few years.

  10. Nathan

    If the Cubs were to make a move with Tigers, and they couldn’t get a Porcello, Crosby, or Smyly, another option might be Drew VerHagen. Big RHP pitching in AA for the Tigers. He went to Vandy so Derek Johnson would know him very well. Could be an possibility.

  11. Jon

    The Royals have been tossed about as good trade partners, mainly because of a desperate GM, but I don’t know what to think of their prospects. The top end of their farm is in a state of flux, Starling and ZImmer are off to terrible starts, I would think Ventura has to be the most attrative piece they have right now

  12. Barry

    Why not include Barney in any trade with the Tigers? Move Valbuena to 2nd and see what Lake can do at 3rd.

    1. mak

      I’d like to see Barney traded. More excited to see Watkins at 2nd, but I think he could be included with any other of the pieces to bring in a decent haul.

      1. Kyle

        Watkins AAA numbers really don’t scream out “this guy can hit in the majors.” They’re like a worse version of Brett Jackson’s last year. Or even Vitters with more walks and less contact.

        If we trade Barney, we can give Watkins a shot for the rest of the year, but be prepared to need a new 2b next year.

        1. hansman1982

          Meh, we need a new 2B anyway.

          1. Kyle

            Probably true.

            Ick, my hopes for 2014 are wilting fast. We have no prospects who look ready to plug in for the year, and we may be looking to trade what few scraps of pitching we have in place.

            1. David

              I’d like to trade Barney and play Watkins to see what he can do. We need “table setters”. Let’s see what he can do before Alcantara is ready. Small chance that Baez will play 2nd when he’s ready, too.

              1. Kyle

                I mean, once we’re tanking the rest of this season, we might as well see what Watkins can do, but he’s not doing anything at AAA that makes me think “Man, this kid has to have a shot!”

              2. hansman1982

                The question is if he can keep up the IsoD he has presently when MLB pitchers start facing him. His SLG isn’t going to scare enough pitchers to get them to throw him balls.

                1. Drew7

                  You *really* want Ace’s “IsoD” to stick, don’t you? :)

                  1. hansman1982

                    Ha. I really do love it; also, I like to think that I came up with the IsoD independently sometime in the 2011-2012 offseason and that’s why I love it so (in reality, I probably saw him use it, liked it and somewhere along the line forgot that I got it from him)…along with wOBAs (including stolen bases) and aOBP (OBP*1.8+SLG).

                2. Kyle

                  There’s also the problem that even with his IsoD, he might he like .180 and thus have a bad OBP.

                  1. Hansman1982

                    Or he might hit .180 AND his IsoD disappears.

            2. jt

              “my hopes for 2014 are wilting fast. We have no prospects who look ready to plug in for the year”
              – Kyle
              Valbuena was a “plug in upgrade” from last years Valbuena.
              Perhaps next year Castro and Rizzo will upgrade their performances from this year.
              Perhaps it will not be that difficult to upgrade that offered from Soriano in LF.
              The BP should be rebuilt by 2014 although Theo has never been particularly good at stocking that part if the roster.

        2. 70'scub

          Got to cut or trade some of the weak Bats why not “Barney”

  13. Dale Jr

    What do u think we could get if
    We packaged shark an garza both of em together

    1. hansman1982

      Not what they would be worth. No team has enough top-tier talent they can give away that would be worth those two.

    2. someday...2015?

      I would want something along the lines of Skaggs, Bradley, Davidson, and Eaton from Arizona. I wouldn’t take less. I’d probably want more.

  14. Cubzfan

    When does the FO decide to keep some pieces for the “competitive” seasons? We can’t sign 21 free agents in the off season to go along with Castro, Rizzo, Shark, and E. Jackson. Who will replace Russell through free agency. Nate is not a bad fourth outfielder on a playoff team and fairly cheap, so why move these guys if we are supposed to be competitive in 2014. Even Feldman and Wood, we still have to have a starting 5 next year. We can’t just have a new team each year. That is not a recipe for sustained success and makes it hard to continue to build on “the Cubs Way” that we hear about. Just thinking out loud.

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Well, much as we might like to change some of these names, the following players are under contract for 2014 at the listed amounts:

      Alfonso Soriano — $18MM
      Edwin Jackson — $11MM
      Starlin Castro — $5MM
      Carlos Villanueva — $5MM
      Kyuji Fujikawa — $4MM
      David DeJesus — $6.5MM (club option)
      Scott Hairston — $2.5MM
      Anthony Rizzo — $1.25MM

      Couple that with arbitration for Shark, Schierholtz, Russell, Valbuena, Barney, Ransom, Wood, Rodriguez, and Borbon (I think) and pre-arb guys like Castillo, Clevenger, Vizcaino, etc. and you’re not looking at a COMPLETELY bare cupboard… just one that needs a lot of new pieces.

  15. Jon Z.

    Alderman Tunney for Giancarlo Stanton straight up. LOL

    1. Cyranojoe


  16. Mike

    Of players on the Cubs’ 25 man roster, keep Rizzo, Schierholtz. Samardzija and Travis Wood, maybe Castro. Anyone else should be traded for whatever can help this team rebuild as quickly as possible.

    1. Drew7

      Well, the 1st step to rebuilding quickly* probably* isn’t getting rid of 80% of the roster.

    2. Cheryl

      I’d keep Schierholtz, Russell, Samardzija and Travis Wood. I’d see what the offers are for Rizzo and Castro. If you could get a real good pitcher for either one I’d consider an offer but it would depend on the offer. I’d also release Sveum at the end of the year. Doubt Soriano will be traded.

      1. Carew

        Rizzo is untouchable

        1. Die hard

          Eliot Ness Rizzo? What about Al Capone Castro? Or Frank Nitti Smardzja?

    3. 70'scub

      Sign Garza? better than getting 1/2 year rental material back. Trade him later if needed like next year.

  17. SenorGato

    Porcello, please!

  18. @murdiddlyurdler

    the cubs can also trade for part of a teams int’l signing pool $$ too, right? that seems like a perfect trade for someone like gregg. he could easily fall off the face of the earth once he’s traded, so a team could look at it as, “I don’t want to have a karchner/garland trade, so I’ll just trade them this money I was never going to use and I can’t look bad for it no matter what.”

  19. Mick

    A possible trade to consider, James Russell for Trevor Plouffe.

    Why it makes sense for the Cubs: Add a middle of the order RH bat. He’s 27 years old. His 1st year of arbitration is next season meaning he’s under team control until 2018. He can play 3B or a corner OF position.

    Why it makes sense for the Twins: Add a lefty to the bullpen, which might soften the blow if they trade Perkins at the deadline. He’s 27 years old. His 1st year of arbitration is next season meaning he’s under team control until 2018. The Twins supposedly have Miguel Sano on the fast track with a potential MLB debut in 2014.

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Sano has a grand total of 8 games at AA… doubt they’ve seen enough of him at higher levels to feel confident inserting him as their everyday 3B in 2014.

      1. Mick

        Aaron Hicks never saw AAA and Arcia (21 years old) was promoted after only a half of a season in AA. Sano is a better prospect than both of those guys and Twins aren’t shy at moving their best talent quickly through the system. Word on the street is they’re going to move Rosario quickly through AA too which means he’s due for the MLB in 2014 too.

        This all seems foreign to Cubs fans since prospects never seem to get past AAA. Just wait until Almora starts flying through the system and you’ll start to understand.

        1. Cubbie Blues

          [slightly off topic] Sano is the closest prospect there is to Bryant. Both with 80 power and average hit tools.

        2. YourResidentJag

          Sano isn’t coming up this year. The Twins have pretty much nothing at 3b until he does and the team isn’t all that sure he can play 3b. I think the Twins are sellers this year like Cubs, so the organization’s going to want to hold onto its cheaper players. Unless the Cubs want Morneau or Perkins, (and I don’t think they do), players like Plouffe aren’t going anywhere.

          A better bet is Kyle Gibson coming up if anyone with the Twins and their farm system.

    2. @murdiddlyurdler

      I don’t see it happening. both teams are looking to really sell. not patchwork sell. i’m not a big plouffe fan to begin with, either.

      1. Mick

        I actually think this trade makes a ton of sense for both teams. The Cubs get a positional player (3B) entering the prime of his career similar to what they were trying to do acquire last off-season with Chisenhall, Headley, etc. The Twins get an eventual replacement for Perkins if he’s traded at the deadline.

        If there’s one thing Theo’s been effective at thus far, it’s been finding good, cheap relief pitching. So, why not trade from what could be considered depth to fill an area of need.

        Not a big Plouffe fan? If you were a big Plouffe fan, do you think Russell would be enough to acquire him???

        1. mudge

          If Theo’s so good at finding cheap relief pitching, why is the bullpen so bad?

    3. Edwin

      I don’t think the Twins would really want to trade a potential “Middle of the order bat” for a relief pitcher.

  20. macpete22

    Buster Olney mentioned the Royals and Pirates as possible landing spots for schierholtz

    1. Rcleven

      OOOOOOOOOh Buster. How cute.

  21. Wilbur

    The whole concept of hold off for the better deal in July is definitely the best seller option. It is the best option for teams that are on the bubble in the sense of knowing your role in the market. However, my simple model says for the teams that are “all in”, say the Yankees just as an example of a team that is in the hunt – if you need the asset pay the premium and gain the immediate benefit and maximize the return (e.g., maximize odds of division championship). Seems particularly viable if you are talking about acquiring pitching.

    1. hansman1982

      Even from the buyer’s prospective, waiting has it’s advantages as you might be able to find an extra seller or two to keep the price down.

  22. afinch

    Sell ALL the players!

  23. Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Why not deal with the Padres?

    Jedd Gyorko (when he’s off the DL) for Feldman, Gregg and Barney.

  24. Nelson

    2016 maybe, sell if you can get anything good luck FO you will need it….

  25. Die hard

    No untouchables? If not then should be– when team is in the crapper then time to flush

    1. TWC

      But when the team is on the grass, it’s time to smoke.

      1. Carew


      2. Die hard

        When on the turf it’s not time to surf

  26. jt

    The one with the 2.98 xFIP
    I question whether FIP is bias to ground ball pitchers over those who get a higher % of outs via the FB.
    I question whether park factor is bias toward teams loaded with offense in leagues where the the better offensive players reside.

  27. Lukewarm Stove: Nationals Aggressively Pursuing Trades, Bard, Garza, Crawford, Gonzalez | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] is one week away from today, though we might not have to wait that long if the Cubs are already “open for business” and exchanging names [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.