Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch: The Many Implications of the Feldman Trade

matt garza cubsScott Feldman, one of the Chicago Cubs’ most obvious and notable trade chips this year, was due to start last night in Oakland. He did not make that start, obviously, as he was traded to the Baltimore Orioles earlier in the day. The relevance here? Well, actually, it’s relevant in more than a few ways, which we’ll explore below, but, for the purposes of this preamble, the relevance is merely superficial.

Matt Garza, one of the Chicago Cubs’ most obvious and notable trade chips this year, is due to start tonight in Oakland. Will he make that start? I actually tend to think the answer is yes, and the timing of the Feldman trade – its relative earliness, I mean – was tied in large part to the opening of the international market yesterday. No, the international pool dollars the Cubs got from Baltimore wasn’t the biggest piece of the return, but that was the piece that was time-sensitive. In other words, I’m defaulting to what I’ve said all along about the timing of a Garza deal: the Cubs won’t move him early unless they’re bowled over by an offer.

  • As I said above, the Feldman trade impacts the Matt Garza trade story in a huge number of ways. First, it starts to set the market for rental starters. No, Feldman’s value is not quite in the same range as Garza’s, but it does offer a data point. Feldman (together with Clevenger as a throw-in) netted a former big-time prospect who hasn’t been able to put it together in the bigs (Arrieta), a very good but very down-this-year reliever (Strop), and a small amount of international pool money. As it was with Feldman, the presumption is that the Cubs will go after true prospect(s) in a Garza deal, so … what does the Feldman return tell us? Translating it to prospects, I’d have to say the Cubs got something like a prospect in the four to seven range in an average system (Arrieta) and a prospect in the 10 to 15 range (Strop). Garza would net a fair bit more, so I don’t see anything in this Feldman trade that suggests the Cubs couldn’t get at least two or three top 10 organizational prospects, one of whom is at the back-end of the top 100 overall. That should remain the baseline – the low mark – of what the Cubs shoot for.
  • The Orioles, per reports, were never all that enamored with Garza. That one of the other available pitchers on the market went to them, then, does nothing to diminish the Garza market – which is a nice side benefit of the trade, and something the Cubs were probably considering. The Orioles are also slightly improved, possibly making the other AL East teams all the more interested in improving (the Red Sox and the Blue Jays, for example, have been connected in some fashion to Garza).
  • (Speaking of the Red Sox, Boston Herald writer Michael Silverman further connects the Red Sox to Garza, saying that they’ve “always” been intrigued.)
  • Further, Feldman’s sudden absence from the market will reduce the pool of available starters, which includes Garza, arguably at the top. And, deftly, the Cubs also removed Arrieta – a theoretical starting trade chip in his own right – from the market. (And, not to get too far off of Garza, the Cubs could always decide to shop Arrieta this month if they’d like. Jon Heyman says the Padres already tried to get him, but there’s a sense that the Cubs like, and want to keep, Arrieta.)
  • Speaking of the Padres, GMs continue to wonder – to Bob Nightengale, that is – whether the fact that the Cubs and Padres have done so much business together before will push them together to make a Garza trade. Garza/Padres rumors have been around for quite a while now.
  • On the flip side, Ken Rosenthal points out that the Padres have lost four in a row and eight of their last ten. He says it would be silly for them to acquire Garza if things keep going sour. That’s definitely true, but it’s worth countering that, even after that stretch, the Padres are still just 2.5 games out in the NL West, tied for third. It’s just a very, very winnable division – and a game or two might make the difference.

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

136 responses to “Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch: The Many Implications of the Feldman Trade”

  1. Cubbie Blues

    Ace, I didn’t know if you caught this piece on the Feldman trade by Dave Cameron. (You may have linked it earlier and I just didn’t catch it.)


  2. The Dude Abides

    Every time the Cubs pitch Garza they are splitting 10′s at the Black Jack Table.

    1. Ben

      If the value isn’t there now, then they have no choice. Worst case is that Garza accepts his qualifying offer after the season (if he does get injured). If we aren’t getting an offer with at least a backend top 100 prospect, then I think we have to hold out.

    2. Alb_daKID

      I feel the same way!!! But what do you do? Do you not have him pitch?

    3. Stevie B

      It’s all a big gamble anyway. Will I be watching every second of this game???Yes. Will I need 3 Xanax by the time Garza toes the rubber? Ummmm…make it 4.

      1. mysterious4th

        Already had them good to go for this start

  3. SenorGato

    The Feldman trade has me thinking Rick Porcello fits as an arm for Garza. The kind of upside you want in a prospect (to go with health and durability), but without the years of control of a prospect.

    This might be heavily influenced by my belief that Porcello fits like a glove here. Right now he’s the only hole in the TIgers’ rotation, and the TIgers are probably the biggest win-now roster in the league.

    1. SenorGato

      Also, IIRC the Cubs were very interested in Porcello during the offseason.

    2. YourResidentJag

      I want some of the Blue Jays SP since I think the Mets did great in getting Syndergaard.

    3. Edwin

      We might have had this discussion before, possibly talking about a Russel/Gregg deal for Porcello.

      I’d love to have Rick Porcello as well, but right now Porcello is actually pitching pretty well. His ERA is bad, but his FIP is 3.65 and xFIP is 3.16. It seems like he’s suffered from some poor sequencing, as his LOB % is just 62.6%. I don’t think the Tigers want to part ways with a young pitcher under team control who is in the middle of putting together one of his best seasons at the MLB level, for a rental in Garza who probably isn’t that much of an upgrade, if any.

      Again, I’d love for this trade to happen, but I just don’t see the Tigers being interested.

      1. SenorGato

        Right now I think the TIgers are less worried about what Porcello might do one day than they are about trying to win a WS. He’s pitching well but still putting up an ERA over 5 there with inconsistent results start to start – I think that alone gives them enough reason to consider moving him.

        We all know the Tigers like Porcello quite a bit – they bring him up at 20 after giving him something like 7 or 11 million out of HS, threw him in game 163, and stuck with him through 4+ years of non-ideal results. In the end, it comes down to how that team is designed to win, now, and a groundball machine like Porcello doesn’t fit the roster.

        I think he’s someone they can get…Perhaps not with Garza, though the value is there, but definitely someone the Tigers won’t hesitate to move to up their chances of a WS. He’s a FA after 2015 anyway, meaning they may never see his best seasons and only *maybe* walk away with a pick for it.

    4. When the Music's Over

      Being a Super Two player, and already having a $5M contract this year, is Porcello really considered a cost controlled player when next year will already be his 3rd year in arbitration? I like his upside and long term capability, but if the Cubs are looking for extreme cost control, which they appear to be almost to a fault, does he really check off the cost-control salary box?

      1. SenorGato

        Cost controlled is not the issue here. The Cubs are collecting talent. The money is there to play with, and we’ve seen they do no hesitate to pay for talent.

        1. When the Music's Over

          I agree with so much you say, but I cant agree with you here. If talent was king and money is in high supply, why trade Garza or feldman in the first place? Like I said before, the brass is almost concerned with cost control to a fault, at least thats what their actions suggest.

          At some point accumulating major league assets, even those at high cost, has to be paramount. Outside of Jackson, from what ive seen thus far, that isnt the case. Porcello would be another guy that wouldn’t quite fit the cost control at all costs mantra, and yet would be another reclamation project. Combine those two variables together and why not just keep Garza?

      2. CubFan Paul


      3. SenorGato

        I am curious as to why the Cubs would be on the extreme side when it comes to looking for cost controlled…Has there been anything that even hints at that? That seems more like an internet fetish than one this FO has, though obviously its nice to have if you can get it.

        1. hansman1982

          Agree, the Cubs are looking more for the control than the cost.

          1. When the Music's Over

            Those two almost always go together.

            1. hansman1982

              Usually, yes, however, not many teams are shopping guys on FA contracts with years remaining that are worth a darn and that are young.

              The cost savings is a secondary benefit to getting guys with 2-3 years of control remaining.

              1. When the Music's Over

                Outside of rizzo/castro type extension contracts, please provide examples where control and cost are not almost directly linked to each other.

                1. SenorGato

                  Before we do all that – especially since you’re already taking examples off the table – why do the Cubs care about the monetary cost? What have they done that signals this is an issue?

                  1. When the Music's Over

                    The whole reason those contracts are signed by teams is with cost control in mind. if not theyd let every player go to arb.

                    1. hansman1982

                      Of course, it’s smart to trade cost certainy (at a reduced price) with giving a kid guaranteed money. You are also forgetting the downside, if the Cubs missed on the talent in Rizzo and Castro, they are on the hook for all of that.

                    2. When the Music's Over

                      ….and then sign them to extensions once arb was finished.

                      As for the soler deal, while it was a large investment in relative terms to the past two years, the cubs certainly still getsome degree of cost control.

                    3. When the Music's Over

                      Hansman, thats the gamble they take in order to get cost control.

                    4. hansman1982

                      Ok…I’m not arguing that the cost control is there and that he may grossly overperform his contract, I’m just saying that they aren’t being cheap to be cheap.

                    5. Eternal Pessimist

                      What a ridiculous argument to have. Having a good talent cheap for 1 year is good. Having a good talent under cost control for an 5 years is good. having a good, cheap cost controlled talent (for 5 years) is great.

                      Every club cares about cost, even those with “money to burn”. The more cheap talent, the better to be able to make every additional move you can to add final pieces.

                2. hansman1982

                  For the Cubs, the obvious one is Edwin Jackson. They were hard after Sanchez as well.

                  Theo and company are hard at work finding talent they can acquire younger than 26-28. These guys are, as a secondary benefit, cheap.

                  If Mike Trout were to come on the market tomorrow, you can bet that the Cubs would be all over him. (and he’d get an insane contract)

                  1. When the Music's Over

                    Im done here. Agree to disagree st this point. I was under the impression that this whole rebuild was to get away from the high cost aporoach of building teams almost exclusively through FA. Since that clearly is way off base according to you two, im not sure why the cubs arent better when they could have just signed everyone this offseason. On top of that, in spite of your comments, im not dumb enough to think that talent isnt king. Of course the cubs want great players. I beleive they just want them cheaply above all else, at least so far in the rebuild. Reply if youd like. Ill read but wont reply.

                  2. hansman1982

                    I think we are debating two different but related things. Agree to just walk away from the smoking box filled with unknown things.

                  3. Rebuilding

                    I’m not sure why you think this. Theo himself said the payroll was “maxed out” in an interview before the season. That’s at $105 million. Will that change when/if the new revenue generators come online? Hope so, but saying that conclusively doesn’t make sense to me

                    1. SenorGato

                      If you believe the Cubs are going to be sitting at 105 million in payroll for very long then I have something that doesn’t exist to sell you. There was no incentive to have higher than that on the payroll this year.

                    2. Timmy

                      I’ve been talking about this for months. It makes no sense to have turned away great players that could have helped the team while rebuilding since we’re so far under our payroll potential.

                      Sorry to see Brett finally throw in the towel, since I appreciate his undying optimism and fandom. But how could a reasonable sports fan conclude otherwise? The team was sabotaged this year, and will be next year, and the following year. And if the corporation who bought the team deems it fit, we might try sometime in the future after most of our children have grown up thinking the team is a cynical joke.

                    3. Rebuilding

                      As you’ll note I said explicitly that when new revenues come online that will very likely expand. If you read articles and research on the topic it seems apparent that the Cubs are paying anywhere between $25-35 mil a year in debt service…about the same amount a payroll called “unsustainable” has been cut. I don’t know how much clearer Epstein could have been – he didn’t say that if there would have been a great FA out there we would have spent more – he said explicitly that they “maxed out” payroll THIS year. If that just so happens to fit with the plan then great. But to act like if they wanted to take a different course payroll would be $130 million doesn’t firt with the facts as we know them

                    4. Timmy

                      I think this is a responsible perspective of the scenario, which I think is an irresponsible situation. We can afford significantly more than that with revenues. They’re simply choosing not to invest ticket prices, concessions, TV deals, ware, and their federally subsidized scalping operation into the team on the field.

                      I can wait until 2018 for us to compete, but why would a big market team make us wait so long? Something’s wrong here, and it’s the giddy dedication to losing for a long time. It’s embarrassing.

                3. SenorGato

                  Yes, and Porcello still has “some degree” of cost control – as do all pre-FA MLB players. Two years of below market price on pitching is a pretty sweet deal.

                  1. When the Music's Over

                    That was the whole point I msde in the first place. Hes not that cheqp anymore.

                    1. SenorGato

                      Relative to what people for pitching on the open market – yeah, he’s cheap. 8 million or so, and he might cost less than that next year, for a consistently 2 WAR starter WITH youth and upside on his side – is very much on the cheap side of things.

                      THEN keep in mind that to extend him probably will not require some cartoonish 150 million dollar contract as he’s been unconventionally successful/productive to this point and can be said to not be either by some.

              2. 70'scub

                hansman1982 explain to these fans that is not the money it is the control! Control equals youth, rebuilding by collecting young talent is what this Garza trade is about. Garza-Feldman career primes, in terms of age does not line up with the time line for the Cub rebuild. Jackson is just an inning eater as the Cub FO has no AAA talent that can pass as an MLB starter.

            2. SenorGato

              Not because they have to, just because that’s how it is. In this case, or really any case for a pre-FA MLB player, the talent is much more important than the years of control. It’s not as if Porcello would be breaking the bank here in his pre-FA or even once he hits FA (depending really on the gains he makes).

              1. When the Music's Over

                I lied about not responding, but I must defend myself here.

                I never said cheap. Cost control and cheap are two extremely different terms. I cannot stress that enough.

                They are hyper concerned with cost controlled talent because they, along with most other GMs, have correctly come to the conclusion that controlling payroll allows you to compete both in the short and long term and is far and away the smartest route to take when running a team. I 100% agree with this. My original point was that I don’t think the Cubs are going to use their best identified free agent talent to acquire a guy that’s getting expensive rather soon. The hyper part is because they are not in the final stages of the rebuild. Once there, I firmly believe they will open up the pocketbooks (assuming the stadium financing crap goes away). However, until that time, more often than not, I believe they are looking for talented players with maximum years of control available.

                As for yesterday’s trade, they were dealing with Scott Feldman, not Garza, and in spite of that, they still got two guys that have yet to reach arb, not a guy that is about to hit his 3rd year of arb. They are going to want to maximize the long term value on him. Right? Haven’t we heard over and over again about exchanging short term assets into long term assets? I wouldn’t call the final two arb years (as a Super Two) of Rick Porcello a long term asset.

                1. SenorGato

                  You can agree 100% with what you said and still understand that the Cubs consistently pay a good price for the talent they have and want to keep. This is no different.

                  Porcello isn’t that expensive, he’s just not prospect price. He also doesn’t have the inane risks of most prospects like strike throwing ability, injury worry, translating to the majors, lasting a major league season….

                  Other notes:

                  - Of course they’re looking for talented players with maximum years of control. A duh statement that has no use here. First and foremost is talent.

                  - The guy hitting his third year of arb is not a FA until after 2015. That’s two full seasons of major league control of a major league starter for half a season of Matt Garza coming off his second arm injury in as many seasons.

                  - I would most definitely call the final two arb years of Rick Porcello an asset, and Porcello himself is a long term asset. There’s really no questions about that – he’s controlled through 2015 and has the kind of arm talent and youth that fits into this team’s long term.

                  1. When the Music's Over

                    Sifting through all the BS, some of which was undoubtedly lost in cyber translation, that’s where we fundamentally differ in opinion. I think the Cubs would view Porcello not as a long term enough asset, but you do. Like I said, I like Porcello and his upside and we agree there, and I’m guessing the Cubs do as well, but if I’m the Cubs I’m trying to trade my far and away best short term asset (that’s on the table), for more than two years of increasingly expensive control.

                    1. Eternal Pessimist

                      Agreed!! getting a guy that you will need to “bid” for the moment your window to shoot for a WS is opening doesn’t help you much (unless Porcella moved to Chicago and wanted to give a hometown discount). The only other thing he might help with is being a flippable asset, and really a poor man’s Matt Garza.

        2. When the Music's Over

          If the cubs weren’t worried about cost, then why go through the extreme 3-4+ year complete rebuild? Please dont tell me cost is just a nice bonus byproduct of this massive undertaking.

          1. SenorGato

            If the Cubs are so worried about cost then why hand a prospect 30 million dollars during the rebuild? Why be one of two overslots in the first round last year? Why be the only team in the top 10 still negotiating with their draft pick?

            I don’t know if some of you have noticed – but when the Cubs get talent they pay a good price for it on a consistent basis. That’s what it costs to get talent, and there’s never been even a hint of an issue with cost.

            1. When the Music's Over

              Spending on the draft and intl draft is one of the best ways to ensure mlb cost control, if not the best.

              1. SenorGato

                Soler got 30 million and has the ability to hit arbitration if he is outperforming the contract. Nothing to do with keeping him cost controlled – every single thing to do with getting the talent in the system.

            2. When the Music's Over

              Next best way is to trade for minor league talent. Both of these tactics are at the forefront of the cubs rebuilding effort.

              1. SenorGato

                The Cubs literally just yesterday showed a willingness to buy low on healthy ML arm talent despite not getting all 6 years of control.

          2. Mr. Brent Kennedy

            To acquire talent to open up a large window of potentially sustained success. Some of the talent will be playing for the club, while some of the talent will be traded off for positions of need. Of course some of them won’t make it either. That’s why you need a lot of pieces.

            1. SenorGato

              Oh, and also this. This turnover period has little to do with cost and everything to do with rejuvenating the talent level throughout the organization. Eventually they hope to maintain the level of talent they create…that won’t be cheap either. Nothing, not one thing, about this rebuild has been cheap except maybe the 2011 offseason when they passed on Pujols/Fielder/resigning ARam/Wilson/Reyes/etc.

        3. Rebuilding

          Agree with the moves or not. Agree with the spending on free agents or not. But the Cubs have cut about $40 million off of major league payroll in the last 2 years and has been pretty conclusively shown used that money for debt payments. To say that cost is not a major consideration right now seems a little naive

          1. mjhurdle

            the flip side to that is ….the Cubs committed to a rebuilding effort that precludes spending big money on FAs that will not be able to help once the system is rebuilt and providing the MLB team quality pieces to use on the field or in trades. As a result of this, their payroll dropped. And then, like most smart people with excess income and large debt, they used the extra income to pay off the debt.
            Chicken and the egg. Did the Cubs cut payroll in order to pay off debt, or are they paying off debt because they have extra money with the lower payroll due to the rebuild?

          2. SenorGato

            Payroll was cut organically – losing big salaries from older players like Wood, Ramirez, Dempster (who would have been gone after last year) to stuff like retirement and finished contracts. That they were able to grab something for Dempster isn’t because they were cheap – it’s because they were smart enough to know that trading him under the new CBA would net more than keeping him through the end.

          3. Rebuilding

            It’s not chicken or egg. Epstein said definitevely that payroll was maxed out at $105 million. So whether it was the plan or not payroll was going to be cut to $105 million

            1. SenorGato

              Epstein has lied to us before, and no one has any real reason to believe the Cubs are capped at 105 for any significant period of time after this season. Again, a conscious decision by the FO to make this roster turnover easy.

              Payroll was inflated in the first place by the contracts that were already on the roster they inherited. Epstein and friends did not leave Boston for arguably the biggest market on the sport (yes, Chicago is a bigger baseball town than NY) to operate with 105 million.

              1. Timmy

                I agree with this – Epstein is probably getting screwed by the Ricketts, and he’ll get fired and take the fall for it in 2017.

              2. Rebuilding

                Well ,we’ve had this discussion many times before I noticed you regularly contributing here (I have enjoyed your take on PSD). And has been pointed out those debt payments are an albatross. Having worked on those deals in the past my best guess is that it’s amortized over 30 years. Interest plus principal each year would be about $30-$35 million a year. That money is not coming out of Ricketts pocket directly, but out of Cubs revenue (as you would expect it to be). That automatically cuts that amount off of your potential payroll. There were arguments here for months about there being no way the Cubs were paying debt payments out of cut payroll – until it was confirmed. Not to say it’s wrong, but anyone expecting payroll to increase much before the new revenues come online isn’t paying attention

                1. Rebuilding

                  Put another way – if payroll was $140 million before (and that was considered stretching it to sell the team) and now you have $30 million in debt service you would expect payroll to be capped at about $110 million now. And Epstein confirmed it is

                  1. Timmy

                    Yes but the team is worth one billion dollars. So why would that money come out of player payroll instead of being levied against other means of debt repayment? It’s ridiculous for a billionaire to buy a billion dollar team by taking a loan from himself and then removing it from, of all places, team payroll.

                    1. Rebuilding

                      It’s not how these deals work. No billionaire would personally guarantee $500 million in debt. The Cubs are the collateral, the money they make the payment source

                    2. Timmy

                      i think this is responsibly argued, but it’s an administrative logic, not a sports logic. i know this is a business, but they’re in the business of winning, not deliberately losing because the ricketts hate our mayor and don’t understand sports. at least florida tried to win before they blew it up.

    5. X the Cubs Fan

      Garza and Gregg for Porcello, Rondon and Austin Schotts

      1. SenorGato

        Detroit might like DeJesus too for a little OBP at the top of the lineup.

        There’s few things I would like more than for the Cubs to walk away with Porcello AND Castellanos in a deal with Detroit, but that’s obviously an even longer shot.

        1. X the Cubs Fan

          The thing about Rondon is if he can get a secondary pitch going he can be a dominant closer and Porcello, a groundball pitcher, would be a perfect fit with our good defensive infield. A Samardzija, Wood, Arrieta, Porcello, Edwin Jackson rotation could be very good.

          1. Hawkeye

            No this would not be a good rotation at all, unless 60% of this said oration pitched significantly better then their previous mlb examples would indicate.

        2. Serious Cubs Fan

          There is no way we can get Castellanos in a trade at the deadline. We don’t have the piece they need. Not sure they need Garza, who is the only player we could trade to possibly net Castellanos. (not even sure Garza could net him in a trade, since he’s going to be a rental) But would love to get Castellanos, kid is a stud. Porcello’s stock is really low right now. Maybe Dejesus could net him, but I still doubt it

          1. SenorGato

            What’s the piece they need?

            DeJesus isn’t getting Porcello, and I wouldn’t even say Porcello’s stock is down right now.

            1. Justin

              I don’ t think we can blanket statement that the Cubs are “only” interested in cost controlled players. Or the Cubs “only” want great players regardless of their cost.
              I think the Cubs want a combination of impact players on hefty contracts when they are ready to win, and good cost controlled players who out perform what they are getting paid.

              Right now they have very little of both. Thus they suck..

              1. SenorGato

                Just to be clear – I don’t work in the world of only and have stated nothing towards the Cubs only wanting great players regardless of cost. It’s so much more subtle than that. Simply put – if they can have you and it costs a little more than the internet believes then they’ve usually paid. Getting better matters more to these guys than getting cheaper, and that is how it should be.

                1. Justin

                  I know. I think “most” of the people on hear are smart enough to feel if a deal makes some sort of sense with a players value vs. their cost/control. Porcello being a headliner for Garza doesn’t excite me much. Even with Garza’s value down, I had my hopes higher than Porcello. But I can see Porcello improving with a move to a different team for sure.

                  1. SenorGato

                    Any specific names on these higher hopes than Porcello? If you can see Porcello – already a 5th year ML at 24 and coming off a 3 WAR season at 23 – improving with a move then how is that not exciting?

                    Probably something to do with a form of prospect keep? Porcello isn’t exactly long removed from being just as highly thought of as the top arm prospects in the minors right now.

                    1. SenorGato

                      prospect creep*

                    2. Justin

                      A couple months ago I would have jumped on a Porcello for Garza trade. But to hear names like Martin Perez, and others mentioned over the last week or so I am shooting higher.

                    3. SenorGato

                      I’m as big a Martin Perez as you’ll find on any board and I don’t see any particular reason to be more excited about him than Porcello. Like Porcello, Perez needs work to get to where he hopefully wants to end up. I would say Perez has more to learn.

                      That said, I would be very excited if the Cubs landed Perez for Garza. Perez has been near the top of my wish list in a Garza trade for a year+ now.

                2. Eternal Pessimist

                  I think you are referring to what the Tribune was will to pay (or more accurately overpay). The single data point of the Edwin Jackson overpay should not be blanketly applied to their other aquisitions.

      2. Superman

        The Tigers bullpen is horriable so I could see them dealing Porcello for a reliever. Think Russell for Procello?

        1. Chad

          That would be an amazing trade for the cubs. Throw in Barney and it is still better for the cubs.

          1. frank

            And that’s why it won’t happen.

  4. Edwin

    I’d think for Garza the Cubs could probably get a prospect in the top 75-100 range, maybe better. I’d expect something in between what the Brewers got for Greinke last year (Segura) and what the Cubs got for Dempster or Maholm last year.

    1. SenorGato

      Segura was a top 60 prospect two years in a row (57 and 55), though I really do think the focus should be on the individual and his attributes rather than the arbitrary ranking number assigned. Don’t forget that Segura came with two other well thought of arms.

      1. Mick

        To throw out another example of a team trading for a rental SP, CC Sabathia netted Matt LaPorta who was Baseball America’s 31st best prospect at the time plus a couple throw-ins. Granted, CC was coming off a Cy Young the previous year and pitching out of his mind before being traded.

        1. Edwin

          Sure. And obviously Garza is a good step below what CC was, and I’d say below what Greinke was as well. So I think getting a player in the 60-75 range would be a decent starting point for expectations about what to get from Garza.

          One thing of note, when CC was traded, the Brewers were able to offer him arbitraion and get draft pick compensation, which can’t happen anymore. So this can decrease the value for players when they are traded, since the team that trades for them can no longer count and getting a draft pick if the player leaves.

          1. Superman

            I don’t think it is out of the question for the Rangers to give up Martin Perez and two other prospects in the 15-30 range in there system for Garza. Plus I am thinking you can throw in Soriano since the Rangers OF maybe hurting if Cruz has a suspension coming.

  5. cubsin

    Given the close race from top to bottom in the NL West, the Marmol trade opens up a world of opportunity for the Cubs. The Dodgers’ plan is fix Marmol’s flaws and turn him into an effective reliever. When the other four teams in the division realize this, they’ll be clamoring for flawed relievers of their own, and the Cubs have an enormous stockpile of them.

    1. Edwin

      Somehow I feel like the other teams in the NL west should be sending players to the Cubs as a thank you for giving them more chances to hit against Marmol as a Dodger.

      1. Cyranojoe

        Well, he’s going to AAA right now…

  6. OCCubFan

    Milton Bradley was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison, so you can take him off your wish list.

    1. Spriggs

      I’ll still proudly sport my Milton jersey. He was prolly framed.

  7. Jason Powers

    Being Oakland is in a pennant race, Garza’s performance tonight could buttress whether he is what a competing team would want.

    SD: probably feel outgunned from LA, and don’t want to give up too much (though they ‘like’ and do business with us) for a rental. If they could get hot, as LA has, then it changes – again.

    Garza pitching against WSox-8, Cards-13, Rockies (for them?) 19, Dbacks 24, Brewers 29th.
    If someone trades by the 8th they get 5 starts plus 11 or 12 going forward.
    He’s gone by All Star break, if races stay bunched. Nolasco impacts…timing as either a countermove, or grasp for the last difference maker pitcher, possibly.

  8. Jonathan

    The other thing with the Padres is they are starting two Biogenesis guys. So that might be reason enough to not go for it in the trade market this year.

    1. Jason Powers

      Yep. Could be a concern. Theo sent emails out about Eric Gagne back when he was good, and juiced.

  9. SenorGato

    I wonder how interested the Padres would be in Travis Wood. Like…High A catcher interested?

    I really find that system’s hype overblown in general, but Hedges is a pretty sweet headliner.

    1. Jed Jam Band

      I’d really rather not trade Wood at this point. Good, young, left-handed starters are a finite commodity and to gamble that on a catcher (albeit, a fine prospect in Hedges) who may or may not end up making an impact with the Cubs seems dangerous to me. No, the Cubs would have to get a truly significant return of near-MLB ready talent to give up Wood.

      1. SenorGato

        My only issue with Wood is that I don’t see the kind of upside most do. He’s 90-91 with the fastball and just nothing about him is physically exciting – stuff, size. I feel like this is as high as he’ll ever be, and I’m always big on selling high.

        I would think a package like Hedges + arm fodder (a Walker Wieckel or something) would be of great interest to a team like the Cubs. I just don’t see anything but a 4-5 on a championship caliber team for Wood, not that 4-5 is a major insult in the grand scheme of things.

        1. Jed Jam Band

          It’s certainly possible, but for the exact reasons you just mentioned, I doubt the Padres (or anyone else) would do this type of trade. And we’re not talking about upside with Wood here because we can establish his record of actual MLB success. Yes, the BABIP is low, but we can expect the regression to bring him back to somewhere in the range of 3.60, as that is his current FIP. No, he’s certainly not an ace, but you have to remember that Theo and Jed would like to compete sooner rather than later. He is a team-controlled, young, effective starting pitcher.

          Still, I have to acknowledge that you have a fair argument.

  10. David

    I still feel we got hosed on the Feldman trade. I’d probably feel different if we made the trade at the last minute, towards the end of the deadline. I keep hearing that their best quality is that they throw hard…. But can they get anyone out???? We need pitching! We need pitching! Our best pitching prospect is coming off of TJ and our next best is 2 years away (Johnson). We passed on Gray in the draft, took an outfielder for the 2nd round pick, we got minimal value for veteran pitchers: Dempster and Feldman, not alit of impact putchers in free agency. I think we’re in trouble.

    1. Mick

      Huh? We took a SP w/our 2nd round pick and 8 out of our top-10 picks. We also traded Dempster and Feldman for 4 pitchers (3 still w/the organization [Jaye Chapman being gone]). I don’t know what anyone was actually expecting to get for Feldman but 2 reclamation project pitchers seems about right.

      I think this trade along with the International signings and even the Torreyes trade at that demonstrates a new direction for this franchise. In Theo’s first year at the helm, the Cubs acquired any prospects they could get their hands on but now the new direction appears to be changing to high-impact over high-volume. If Arrieta’s control can be improved, he’s a top of the rotation type pitcher and Strop a top bullpen arm. Both pitchers also come with years of team control.

      I’d expect the return on Garza to be pitching related too. I like Kelly from the Padres, Perez from the Rangers, and the Red Sox have a couple of intriguing options too.

  11. LWeb23

    I don’t know which of the hundred articles Brett put up yesterday that I mentioned this in, but another implication of the Feldman trade should highlight the Padres and Arrieta. Reports were that the Padres top targets at this point in time were Arrieta or Garza. The Cubs got themselves Arrieta, essentially shrinking the market for the Padres. Yes, this seems trivial but it was one of their top 2 targets. It’s not like they were interested in Feldman, and it’s not like they would be interested in Nolasco. They seemed to have their sights set on only those two, and we knocked one of them out.

    1. Jason Powers

      Or did we just make it easier to trade for Arietta? If that still is apart of SD plan? Since Hoyer knows what he likes from his SD drafting days and SD must know what it likes in Arietta.

  12. Cyranojoe

    Apropos of nothing, but I was just looking at the team leaders in various categories. Guess who’s top of our Stolen Bases list? Just guess.

    Alfonso Soriano. With eight.

    Hard not to think of Tony Campana right now…

    1. hansman1982

      Meh, stolen bases pale in comparison in value to the slugging Soriano can provide.

      1. Rudy

        I think he’s got his eyes set on that vaunted 350/300 club He’s only 22 SBs away. I could see him running wild towards the end of the season if he’s not traded. Haha!

    2. Chad

      Yeah, I can just see him getting on base at a .259 clip (career average) and stealing 7 bases (career TOTAL, and p.s. that is 1 LESS than Soriano just this season). Yeah too bad we don’t have him on the team anymore.

      1. JulioZuleta

        Campana is 27 years old and in AAA, albeit with decent numbers. Of course, one would expect solid numbers from a guy going through the PCL for his THIRD time. This Leal kid we got for him is looking pretty good right now. Trade could turn out to be a steal.

      2. Chris Lattier

        I’m not a Campana fan — but who only has 7 career SB?

      3. X the Cubs Fan

        Chad I would love to know where your Tony Campana stats come from im guessing out of your ass. Over 2011 and 2012 seasons Campanas OBP averages about .305 but he has 54 sbs in limited time.

        1. Chad

          You are sort of right. I looked at the wrong stat line unfortunately (spring training showed up for some reason) on the diamondbacks page. You’re right he does have 54 SB in the majors, my bad, but he still only gets on base .306 and his slugging is somehow lower than in OBP (sad) at .300. So yes my number of steals are off, but man he is still not someone I would want on my team.

          1. Cyranojoe

            Yeah, that threw me for a huge loop, I saw 7 SB and said what, in one week? Found an article that stated 30 SB in 2012. That sounded more right.

            And I don’t mean to trade Sori for Campana, that’s nuts. Just snarking lightly that it was nice having somebody on the team faster than Alfonso. ;)

  13. 5412


    I don’t want a prospect for Garza. I want another ARam.


    1. Rich H

      I want Josh Riddick and May but I can not see either of us getting exactly what we want on this one.

  14. Superman

    I am jumping off track right now. I know Samardzija is a peice to build around but what if he can fetch some serious talent from Texas? There is no rumored interest or anything like that but adding a young cost controlled possiable ace in Shark to an already nice rotation in Texas. It would benefit the Cubs because of the nice almost ready prospects they have. The asking price for Shark will be high but what if you added Baez to the mix as well. Stay with me.

    Cubs get Jurickson Profar, Martin Perez, Luke Jackson, C.J. Edwards, and Cody Buckel
    Rangers get Jeff Samardzija, Alfonso Soriano, James Russell, and Javier Baez

    Is that even possiable? Is that even fair?

    1. Jed Jam Band

      The semantics of such a deal would be incredibly difficult to figure out. That being said, that’s not really a fair deal for the Rangers. They’d be giving up an awful lot. Also, it’s difficult to give up Samardzija. No, I think we need to limit our discussions to ACTUAL possibilities.

      1. Superman

        Point taken

        1. Chad

          I’ll be honest. I would give up Samardzija, but it’s going to require a big package for him alone. This was discussed a few days ago about the Diamondbacks. But I think it would have to start with Perez and Buckel. I say yeah do your deal if you are the cubs. That would get you younger in a hurry.

  15. Kevin

    Off topic, but would like to know the impact of the delayed Kris Bryant signing. Are the players who have committed to the Cubs in rounds 11-40 just sitting around waiting for Bryant to sign or are we already losing some of them?

    1. Chad

      That is my biggest concern as well. There are a lot of high ceiling guys that they drafted in the later rounds that I would love to see the cubs get into the system.

      1. Scotti

        We lose them only if he officially doesn’t sign.

  16. Lukewarm Stove: Nolasco Watching, Ill-Timed Injuries, Soriano, Hoyer, More | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    [...] to be a spate of will-he-won’t-he-start rumors leading up to tonight’s games, but, as I discussed earlier, I’m not so sure it’ll be about Matt Garza’s start tonight against the A’s. [...]

  17. Kenster

    Stop talking about Porcello he doesnt intrigue me anymore. He’s old rumors and still hasnt seemed to put it all together on one of the best teams in the league

    1. Chad

      Well, nobody really cares if he doesn’t intrigue you anymore, it matters if he intrigues the cubs. And he is playing on a great offensive team. Defense not so much, and when you are a groundball pitcher that matters a lot.

      1. wvcubsfan

        How dare you attempt to argue that professionals that get paid to assess baseball players should know more than Kenster of Bleacher Nation.

        1. X the Cubs Fan

          He’s currently a good groundball pitcher with a very slow infield.

  18. North Side Irish

    Was disappointed to see this in Dave Cameron’s chat on Fangraphs today…

    Comment From Benson
    What’s the price for Garza, and where is the best fit? I’m thinking a couple B prospects should get it done?

    Dave Cameron: Maybe just one B prospect and some filler. Pitchers with a history of arm problems have to take a discount.

  19. The Show

    Garza and Gregg to the Tigers for Porcello, VerHagen and maybe a lower level prospect.

  20. Carne Harris

    Also dealing Feldman now opens up a rotation spot for Villanueva to show what he can do over the next month, while not having to compete with a similarly 2nd-tiered SP trade chip in Feldman. With the extra year of control, Villanueva could be a desirable target for a team like the Dbacks who say they don’t just want a half-year rental.

  21. Cubfan Budman

    Could they trade Garza to Colorafo and get Gray as one of the pieces??

    1. HackAttack

      Can’t trade a drafted guy until one year after he signs.

      I think international signees are fair game at any time though.

    2. TonyP

      No, Gray can’t be traded for a year….

  22. Cubfan Budman


    1. nkniacc13

      you can it would just be a PTBN

      1. HackAttack

        Clubs have six months to agree on a PTBN.

  23. Die hard

    That’s not to say that a trade understanding can’t be reached beforehand– an sure many have been made already .. The fun will be to try to figure out who made what deals already

  24. Cubfan Budman

    Thanx I thought it was a year but that would be sweet !!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.