Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch: The Heavy Asking Price, Orioles, Rangers, Nationals, More

matt garza cubsAs you’re taking in the Cubs and Pirates today, a healthy chunk from the Matt Garza rumor mill to chew on …

  • Perhaps the most interesting bit to come out on the Matt Garza trade front in recent days is a report out of Baltimore that, before settling on Scott Feldman, the Orioles were in on Garza. But those talks broke down, according to Eduardo Encina, because the Cubs asked for a package that included infield prospect Jonathan Schoop, and pitching prospect Eduardo Rodriguez. Those would be prospects three and four in the Orioles’ system (behind two guys that the Cubs aren’t getting, in Dylan Bundy and Kevin Gausman), and Schoop was a consensus top 100 prospect (in the 70 to 90 range) coming into the season. Rodriguez was probably just a touch out of the top 100. Schoop hasn’t put up great numbers this year, but we’re talking about a 21-year-old middle infielder who’s already reached AAA. Rodriguez tore up High-A, and has now reach AA at just 20-years-old. That’s the range of prospects you’d like to see the Cubs getting in a Garza deal (more about that tomorrow), and I am very encouraged to know that the Cubs are, at present, asking a very steep price for the top trade chip on the market. My guess is the Cubs were asking for more than Schoop and Rodriguez, too.
  • Ken Rosenthal says that the Texas Rangers remain interested in Matt Garza, just as they were at this time last year. Rosenthal’s sources tell him what we’d already long heard: the Cubs and Rangers were extremely close to making a trade for Garza – maybe even that night when his elbow injury flared up. The Rangers are likely to remain in the mix for Garza up until he’s moved, and although their system is no longer considered a top five or maybe even ten system, it’s still plenty deep to put together a quality package for Garza. Wouldn’t it be incredible if the two sides come together on a deal involving Garza, third base prospect Mike Olt and pitching prospect Martin Perez? That was the rumored deal last year, when Olt’s and Perez’s stocks were much, much higher than they are today (and Garza’s value was much higher). A part of me is wishing that that’s the precise deal that happens, not only because it’s an acceptable take for the Cubs, but because then I could pretend that whole elbow injury thing didn’t screw the Cubs at all.
  • The Nationals also have interest in Garza, per Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post. Kilgore describes that interest as “kicking the tires,” and that no formal offer has been made. That, to me, sounds like a, “hey, Theo and Jed, we’ve got some interest in Garza, but we don’t want to give up much … how much are you asking?” type of thing. That’s probably how many of these conversations start. With Dan Haren injured/ineffective and Ross Detwiler headed to the disabled list, the Nationals are probably as interested in picking up a pitcher as any team in baseball, especially when you consider how theoretically stacked their roster is, and how they are still somehow five games out of a playoff spot. As with the Rangers, there is plenty in the system that matches up well in a trade with the Cubs, so the Nats could become a very interesting trading partner.
  • Beyond the Boxscore takes a deep look at Garza’s value as a starter, and value in the trade market. Summing up the conclusion – and you should actually read the piece – it looks like there is a fair bit of justification to expect a healthy return.
  • In case you missed it yesterday, the Marlins traded Ricky Nolasco to the Dodgers in a deal that has a number implications here for the Cubs. Speaking of which, Jim Bowden says the Dodgers weren’t all that interested in Garza, given the asking price. Nolasco was described as “more realistic.” There’s not much there, other than to underscore the point that the Cubs have a very high asking price for Garza.

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

197 responses to “Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch: The Heavy Asking Price, Orioles, Rangers, Nationals, More”

  1. Internet Random

    “Wouldn’t it be incredible if the two sides come together on a deal involving Garza, third base prospect Mike Olt and pitching prospect Martin Perez?”

    Yes, please.

    1. Die hard

      That would be incredible and as such impossible … Cubs have no leverage

      1. X the Cubs Fan

        Yeah because him being the only pitcher on the market and 10-15 other teams trying for Garza means the Cubs have no leverage at all.

      2. BPaoni

        How dont they? If they don’t get the offer they like, then they keep him and get another high draft pick in a loaded draft next year

        1. MichiganGoat

          Don’t reply to his bait you’ll find yourself less frustrated.

  2. Lou Brock

    If Mike Rizzo GM of Nats decides he wants Garza he will make a offer that will get him what he needs. He probably overpaid for Gio Gonzalez but that was under different circumstances.
    Mike is a Chicago guy and will make the Cubs a fair offer.

  3. Bender 13

    The trade with the Rangers would seem fair on all sides. If that were to happen, would Olt stay at Iowa the rest of 2013 and then compete for 3rd base in Spring training, you think?

    1. cub2014

      mike olt would be our 4-5 best minor league
      3B: In his only trip to AAA he is hitting .190
      Bryant,Baez,Villanueva have had better numbers
      at similiar levels. Bryant is a better prospect.
      Vitters and Lake have hit way better at AAA
      than Olt. Then you have Candelario and
      Carhart doing well at lower levels.

      1. wvcubsfan

        Oh the difference a year makes.

      2. Bender 13

        Well, I’m not counting on Bryant until he’s signed and delivered, and for now, Baez is a SS. Wouldnt you say that Olt seems to have a higher ceiling than Villanueva? He was a much higher rated prospect in the same system a year ago, and Villanueva hasnt set the world on fire in our system so far.

      3. sclem21

        Olt is still a better prospect than Villanueva; you are also ignoring Olt’s plus defense at the hot corner.

        I’ve seen Olt rake in Myrtle Beach before getting injured and again last year for AA frisco. His star has dimmed a bit but he is still a piece to covet. Half of a bad season at AAA doesn’t change that.

    2. Luke

      Olt would be trying to resurrect his status after an absolutely hideous 2013 campaign.

      Olt is the Rangers’ Brett Jackson.

      1. Rebuilding

        He’s had a severe vision problem due to one tear duct not working properly. Supposedly he has new tear drops but he is a risky proposition

        1. sclem21

          Yea half of a bad season with a legit medical reason doesn’t scare me off the guy. The comparison with B-Jax ends at scary K rate…I don’t agree that Olt is viewed in the industry as a lost cause in the same way as Jackson, at least right now.

          1. Luke

            Jackson isn’t viewed as a lost cause, either.

            And Olt’s eye troubles are known. However, I’m not certain how much of his current trouble is purely related to those eye problems. After all, he is still walking at a 13% rate in Triple A. Seeing pitches outside of the strike zone isn’t causing him much trouble.

            It’s his K rate of 32.7% that stands out. That rate is consistent with what we’d expect given his K% in Double A last year and in A ball the year before.

            Olt looks like another guy who knows when to lay off pitches out of the zone, but has trouble making consistent contact with pitches in the zone (ie: Jackson). I’d still take him on a buy low, worth a shot type deal, but not as a major piece of a package for a guy like Garza.

            1. Justin

              Not to be negative, but I’m pretty sure that Jackson is a lot cause. I guess he could become a 4th outfielder, but who cares.. That K rate isn’t going anywhere. Sadly, he’s done as a player that matters.

            2. Mike S

              Well wouldnt Perez be the MAJOR piece in that deal, with Olt kinda being the icing on the cake? I havent looked, but how much of Olts K rate being so high is attributed to his vision problems? Whats his K rate since discovery and treatment of his eye problem?

              1. Mike S

                As a side note, id still prefer to see a return of Bradley/Skaggs and Stryker Trahan than anything else. With the Dodgers adding Nolasco and the Giants being in on Gallardo I would think the Dbacks may have to make that move to stay in it, hopefully!

                1. Adam

                  They arent going to give up Bradley for Garza, and if they are I think the Cubs do that trade straight up and do back flips.

                  1. Mike S

                    if Crick ends up in a Gallardo deal I think that bodes well for Garzas value and a return of Bradley and Trahan

                    1. Abe Froman

                      Would have to deal Samardjza to get Bradley, not getting him for Garza, more like Trahan and another legit piece.

                  2. Mike S

                    I also wouldnt have thought they would trade Bauer for pennies on the dollar either, but they did. If Perez/Olt is reasonable to a point, then Bradley/ Trahan is not unimaginable for a team that sent Bauer away for a light hitting good fielding ss prospect with no speed.

                    1. Abe Froman

                      I have to agree to disagree on that, would love to be proved wrong.

  4. baldtaxguy

    I have a positive feeling about the return on Garza. Hopefully, tomorrow, he shuts out the Sox. And I hope his pitch count is 115 so we can post back and forth late into the night.

  5. Deacon

    Funny, baldtaxguy! I have a hunch you’ll get your wish. Our Idiot Manager is a big fan of high pitch counts! :)

    One last thing I’ll say on the timing of the trade front…

    Yes, you get perhaps better returns as teams get desperate but with 4 or 5 teams tottering on the edge of deciding they’re NOT contenders this year I’d expect the supply of starting pitchers on the trade market to go up significantly over the next couple of weeks meaning it’s far more than Bud Norris and Garza as the only quality guys out there.

    So from that perspective, I think making a deal now might make more sense while supply is so limited.

    1. Rcleven

      Why is 115 pitches considered a high pitch count? By this time of year most starters should be stretched out enough to go to 120/125 if the situation allows.
      Pitch count should be adjusted to each pitcher.

      1. Rebuilding

        Many studies show that at some point around 100 pitches a pitchers supporting, smaller muscles start to get fatigued. That leads to a change in mechanics as the pitcher tries to compensate leading to them putting added stress on the shoulder and the elbow. That added stress leads to injuries. It does vary slightly between pitchers, but the 100-110 pitch mark is generally considered the benchmark as to when it happens

        1. al_einstein

          Actually, there is little to support that pitch counts suppress injuries to pitchers. Can u site some of the research u r referring to? I try to keep current with new, quality research studies that are published, such as this one, which suggests that cumulative work metrics are NOT predictors of injuries in pitchers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23090322/

          1. wvcubsfan

            Didn’t you post that same link the last time this guy was complaining about high pitch counts? He evidently ignored it then just like he will this time.

            1. al_einstein

              This is the first time i have posted here. I have read for quite some time, but never actually posted.

          2. DocShock

            Also check ou the work by two guys who work in medicine (and one guy well known for working on injured arms) as he came to he same conclusion: Dr. Glen Fleisig and Dr. James Andrews.

        2. Rcleven

          Got me thinking and I found this. Kind of old but still relevant.

          http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

          Supports that 120 pitch count.

          1. wvcubsfan

            From the article “We should interject a few notes of caution here. First is that we haven’t yet established what PAP was originally designed to measure — risk of injury from overuse.”

            Which was the original argument being made.

            1. Rcleven

              What I got from the article injury did not even come into play. It was more an effectiveness issue for the following starts measuring only 21 days after a X date. Better pitchers will be going deeper into games with a smaller pitch count per inning.(DUH). Smaller pitch count 90-100 was no more effective in his later starts and a pitcher throwing 120 being more effective.
              I would Imagine as always every pitcher is different.
              ie:A knuckle baller would be able to throw more pitches per game vs. someone who threw fastball,curve,sinker.
              Any pitcher can be hurt on any one pitch.

      2. Hansman1982

        Meh, just something to “blame” Sveum for, just like he was a moron for pulling guys at 90-95 pitches back in April and early may.

  6. YourResidentJag

    Not a big fan of Olt. Would prefer that the Red Sox become more involved in trade talks.

    1. Earl Cunningham

      Same, they got the most intriguing prospects to me. I’m sure Theo would love to get back some of his guys like Owens and Ranaudo.

      1. YourResidentJag

        Would love to have Ranuado.

  7. Luke

    I like the possibilities in the Nationals system better than the Rangers. Perez would be a nice pick up, but he’s not enough to the make the deal by himself and I’m not really interested in Olt.

    1. EricR

      Nothing less than Krol and Jordan me thinks.

    2. KTB

      Luke, would you be disappointed with a Perez/Olt return? I feel like that would be a win for the Cubs even though Olt has been bad.

  8. sclem21

    I was extremely disappointed in the Marlins for the return on Nolasco. *Hopefully* MIA making a deal first doesn’t depress the asking price on starting pitching…because that was awful.

    Granted, Nolasco isn’t Garza, but the Marlins certainly could have set a higher bar on expected returns than they did…let’s just hope that deal going through is inconsequential to Garza/Cubs and didn’t dampen the market.

    1. Rcleven

      Miami wanted someone to pick up all of Nolasco’s salary. They had no takers for a for him and what they were asking in prospects. LA had the cash. Two totality different pitchers. Two different situations.

    2. Michael

      If somebody says well wait Miami only got this in return, Theo or Jed simply say have you seen that thing in CF and that would be the end of that.

      1. gocatsgo2003

        Huh?

        1. Michael

          Anybody who decides to put thtat crazy monument in CF clearly does not make could decisions

        2. Michael

          Sorry good decisions, If you have no clue google it. It goes off when a Miami player hits a HR

  9. Kirbs414

    Bryant projects better as an outfield bat than a 3rd baseman. Just because we have Bryant doesn’t mean we can’t go after Olt. I don’t know where Olt’s defense ranks but you can’t have enough big bags in your system no matter where they play.

    1. Kirbs414

      Big bats are also nice to have.

      1. willis

        And I wouldn’t count the team has “having” Bryant just yet. 5 days left to get deal done.

    2. sclem21

      Olt is a very good defender at 3B. Experiments in the OF weren’t nearly as promising…but they were also because Beltre was blocking him and not any deficiencies of his own

    3. X the Cubs Fan

      Bryant has all the defensive tools to stick at third, I swear everybody just listens to the first couple scouting report on players and assumes they are right. Also, Scott Boras may be a pain in the ass but he is not an idiot, he knows Bryant has very very little to gain and everything to lose if he goes back to school.

    4. baldtaxguy

      “Bryant projects better as an outfield bat than a 3rd baseman.”

      I don’t understand what this means.

      1. Justin

        “Bryant projects better as an outfield bat than a 3rd baseman.” This statement doesn’t make any sense. Obviously if Bryant or any other player can’t stick at 3rd base and has to move to the outfield, their value takes a serious hit.

      2. Hansman1982

        I think he means tht Bryant is probably gonna end up as a corner outfielder.

      3. Kirbs414

        I meant what Hansman said. It seems like we hear more of Bryant probably ending up in a corner outfield spot. Granted best case is still that he stays at 3rd since his bat is more valuable in that spot. But it seems like we hear more that he’ll eventually have to move to the outfield.

  10. EricR

    Olt, Valdespina, and a lesser known. That would get it done for me.

  11. Cory

    With Berkman hitting the DL I dont think a Soriano Garza package for Olt Perez deal would be unrealistic at all. The real question is would the FO want more?

  12. jayrig5

    Olt was overvalued last year. I think he’d be a nice 3rd piece to a trade, but he’s not enough to build a deal around.

  13. Greg Z

    How about trading Garza and another trade chip to the Marlins for Stanton and let the Marlins deal for prospects?

    1. MichiganGoat

      This will not happen:
      1-Marlins don’t need a rental pitcher
      2-Stanton sweepstakes will be huge this off season and it will take 2 of our top 4 plus another top 10. It will be a very expensive trade and the FO has to decide if he is worth depleting our farm system to obtain.

      It will be a major discussion this winter and I honestly don’t know if we have the pieces to compete with the other teams. The price will be huge to get Stanton.

      1. Hansman1982

        I think a realistic package to get him would be Baez, Vogelbach and Pierce Johnson plus another piece.

        We have to prospects to pay for him, just curious if we have the will to pay it.

      2. chrisfchi

        IMO depleting our system for Stanton would put this team back on the rebuild plan another 3-5 years. I still feel that building our system up with prospects, and a few timely FA pickups and were right back in it. I still don’t see the Cubs being competitive until maybe 2015. That is unless some GM gets hit in the head before the deadline and depletes there system for Garza.

    2. Justin

      Stanton is a beast, but gets banged up a ton for a young player. I don’t see him aging well. I would hate for the Cubs to pay out the ass for him with prospects and he continues to miss a lot of time. The Cubs are going to have some tough decisions for sure though.

      1. YourResidentJag

        Inclined to agree, Justin.

  14. Cub Style

    I have a man crush on Cody Buckel. Get Cody Buckel. Man crush can be local then.

    1. YourResidentJag

      Buckel velocity and control are real issues in keeping him a SP.

  15. Cub Style

    Also, Rougned Odor to add to our awesome name collection.

  16. Justin

    If the Cubs could get Perez straight up for Garza, they better jump all over it. Perez is legit and already performing well in the majors. Unlike a lot of the prospects talked about for Garza, Perez has zero chance of flaming out in the Majors. Like I said he’s already playing well. Worst case with Perez is that he struggles as a starter (which I don’t see happening) and he becomes a dominant bullpen guy.

    If they can get Olt too and throw in Vitters that’s cool, but not a big deal too me. Perez is the guys that matters..

    1. YourResidentJag

      That’s a big if. Love Perez, just don’t see it.

      1. Justin

        Yeah, I agree. Perez would be an amazing return for a Garza rental.

  17. JM

    By and large, prospects who are well known that spend three or four years without making it to the majors, wind up rotting away. Remember our farm system several years ago ( jennings, kieshnick (sp?), Brown, Cline, etc)? Because they were never utilized, they got stagnant. Olt falls into that category for me. That is also why I like Baez being moved up. I always think that challenging a player is good for him and helps you know what he’s made of.

    Some of today’s best players made the jump from AA and skipped AAA altogether.

  18. jrod

    How about Garza and Russel to the red sox. Cubs get Alan Webster and Will middlebrooks

    1. MichiganGoat

      Oh these joking trades are so cute

      1. Alb_daKID

        HAHA!!

    2. YourResidentJag

      Well, the Alan Webster part, goat, is silly, but I wouldn’t want Middlebrooks. As has been mentioned here before, K% too high.

      1. Justin

        Middlebrooks had 15 homers in 267 at bats and an .835 OPS as a 23 yr old rookie. I would gladly take him back in a Garza deal.

        1. YourResidentJag

          Meh. His K rate is alarming. Too hit or miss for me. As a third piece maybe, but I doubt the Red Sox would consider him a third piece.

          1. Justin

            Yeah, he strikes out a lot. And I typically hate high K rate guys, like Brett Jackson. As they are obviously very frustrating. But what he did in the Majors last yr as a 23 yr old 3rd baseman is pretty awesome. I like him a quite a bit. Difference of opinion I guess…

      2. MichiganGoat

        I see the issues with Middlebrooks but if this offer was/is on the table, Garza would be gone. I really think a return similar (but slightly better) than Feldman is where we should set expectations right now.

        1. KTB

          Thank you for being realistic. Garza is not THAT valuable of a trade chip.

          1. MichiganGoat

            As fans we have a tendency to over value our assests and negate another teams players. I’m sure somewhere a fanbase is say they should trade a poor package to the Cubs for Castro.

            1. Oswego chris

              Just like on Pawn Stars when people think they have things that are really valuable and then get pissed when they are not…Garza expectations should be tempered a bit…

        2. YourResidentJag

          Would want a SP over MiddleBrooks if that’s the case. Red Sox have some solid starters ranked by most as #10-#15 in their system. Guys like Workman and Ranuado.

          1. Serious Cubs Fan

            Agreed. I am not a big fan of Middlebrooks. Pretty overrated player in my opinion.

  19. James

    I would like to see the Cubs and the Diamondbacks work on a Matt Garza deal. The Diamondbacks young thirdbasemen Russ Davis would be nice in a package. Much better then Mike Olt.

    1. baldtaxguy

      Are you referencing “Matt Davidson”

  20. Cubfan Budman

    I’m with Jag …..The Red Sox need to get in on this more that centerfielder Bradley Jr. looks like a nice place to start.

  21. James

    Sorry Matt Davidson.

  22. Lou Brock

    I agree with Luke on Nats as the best match. Let’s offer Garza and Russell for Giolito, Jordan, Krol, and Nieto , a switch hitting catcher in high A ball.

  23. Oswego chris

    First time I have seen Strop…

    Looks good

    1. Rebuilding

      Strop is good. The Orioles just abused him last year because of it

      1. willis

        Yeah he looks pretty nasty out there. Love his velocity and he keeps the ball down it seems. I think we’re going to like him.

        1. gocatsgo2003

          … Or re-flipping him at the deadline if he can continue to pitch well.

          1. Hansman1982

            Eh, I think the FO is probably planning on keeping him. We need some solid BP arms for next year.

            1. Bric

              That was my first thought when they traded for him in the first place. Could be an important second piece in a package deal.

            2. gocatsgo2003

              While true, being under team control until 2018 (including arb years… I think) is also part of the reason he could be valuable as a “sweetener” in a deal.

        2. wvcubsfan

          One of the things I’ve noticed the two times I’ve seen him is that his mechanics seems to be fairly repeatable. I honestly think this was one of the biggest reasons Marmol couldn’t ever consistently throw strikes. It never looked like his body and arm were in the same position for three pitches in a row.

          1. YourResidentJag

            Yeah, Marmol’s mechanics stunk.

  24. Oswego chris

    Okay…I am not coaching baseball anymore, but I don’t understand why so many of these guys fly open and off the mound…we always focused on guys having all momentum going towards the plate…I guess they don’t want to change them…

    Barney is not very good at hitting

    And that U of I coach might have been the worst singer since Drunk Ditka…

  25. KTB

    Can someone please explain to me why Garza is that much more valuable a trade chip than Nolasco? Asking for more than two of a teams top 4 prospects seems ridiculous. Are GMs really changing their minds over a guy based on four straight good starts over mediocre/bad teams.

    1. gocatsgo2003

      Why would you ask for anything else? It’s Negotiations 101 to set the bar high with your initial ask.

      And while Garza hasn’t been an ace or even a #2 on most decent teams, he’s been a better pitcher than Nolasco for most of his career. His significant AL experience is also a differentiator.

    2. Abe Froman

      KTB, are you a fan of a team that is in trade talks and wondering what Cub fans think the return is? Garza is a superior pitcher to Nolasco and the Marlins shipped him off for cheap because they prioritize salary relief,the Cubs do not.

      1. Dougy D

        You said it sausage king

        1. KTB

          I do believe that Garza is a superior pitcher to Nolasco, I just don’t think the difference is so much that the Cubs are going to get two top 100 prospects for Garza when the Marlins basically got nothing for Nolasco. Hopefully I’m wrong.

          1. gocatsgo2003

            Just keep asking for the moon and hope there’s a GM who blinks. The return will likely end up a notch or two above what the Marlins got for Nolasco, but the front office has to hold their position while multiple teams are interested to maximize the potential return.

          2. Abe Froman

            Their priority was salary relief and they got that so different situation.

          3. Justin

            KTB, if the Marlins would have paid his salary it would have helped a lot. The Cubs will eat Garza’s salary. Also, Garza having success in the AL East when the Yanks and Red Sux were in their prime is huge as well. Garza pitched well in the postseason for the Rays too. No one can say that Garza is an ace, but he’s a clear step up from Nolasco. If a team really wants to win this yr, he could be a huge help down the stretch. At the same time GM’s don’t want to give up the next Jean Segura either. Hopefully some GM gets really desperate and Garza doesn’t break his arm again…

            1. wvcubsfan

              He’s for sure no ace, but he’s a good #2 or a dominate #3. Either of which a team in the playoffs would love to have.

            2. Serious Cubs Fan

              I’m not sure the Cubs will be willing to eat any of Garza’s salary unless they get a better return on the trade, which most teams I think would be willing to take on his salary rather than give up a great prospect for Garza. But I do agree, I’m sure the Cubs have no problem eating his salary in order to get a better return and I’m sure their using that as a negotiating tactic

              1. Justin

                The Cubs would MUCH rather eat his salary and help the return. Not sure it’s even close. Not every team is like the Dodgers where money doesnt matter too.

                1. Serious Cubs Fan

                  It’s pretty obvious the Cubs would take on the rest of Garza’s salary but team isn’t going to give up an additional major prospect just because the Cubs eat $5-6mil on the rest of his contract. You have to factor in that the team that is acquiring him has aspiration to make the playoffs, which means increased revenue to take a contract like Garza, just for the rest of the season. Let’s not making eating Garza contract out to be like it will get us major prospect. But I do see your point though. I just don’t think eating the rest of Garza contract is as big of a trade chip as people think

            3. KTB

              For what its worth ZIPS has Nolasco at 1.1 WAR for the rest of the year and Garza at 1.0. Steamer has each of them at 1.2. Obviously the Cubs will pay the remaining of Garza’s $5 million or whatever is left, but I still don’t see how that gets them a return of anything more than at most one top 100 prospect. Theo can ask for whatever he wants, but good luck getting a huge haul. Again, I hope I’m wrong.

  26. Hawkeye2434

    I live in Des Moines and the local radio has Kaplan on once a week to talk Cubs. One line he dropped a couple weeks ago was about Garza. He said the Cubs had a deal in place with Texas last year that was going to be completed after the game Garza got hurt in. He didn’t list names, but said the Cubs were in line to get an absolute haul from TX.

    1. KTB

      He also had another whole year of cost control last year. He has less than half a season to pitch for whatever team he goes to this season.

      1. Abe Froman

        He’s the top arm on the market, look at other midyear rentals like Beltran and Grienke, he is not on that tier but close, since he is the top available pitcher. Theo and Jed seem to stand firm so the return may surprise you.

      2. Hawkeye2434

        I know. Just saying like Brett was pointing out depending on what we’re able to get this year, how we should view the impact of his injury last year.

  27. Dumpgobbler

    Garza, Soriano and cash for Perez, Jackson and Alfaro would work out well both ways I’d think.

  28. Timmy

    Here’s one for you: Garza and Soriano for Pujols. I bet the Angels would do it.

    1. Timmy

      Check that, Garze, Soriano, and Rizzo for Pujols. I can see this happening. In fact it will happen.

      1. gocatsgo2003

        Yeah no. And why would anyone want that contract anyway?

      2. Abe Froman

        Well it may not be as possible as you think, based on the logic of this post I offered some Ramen Noodles and a dry erase board for my neighbors Corvette and he said no, I forgot he was able to decline my trades.

        1. YourResidentJag

          :)

        2. Live Easy

          Did you offer him a full pack of dry erase markers to go along with it? If not, maybe you should resubmit the deal with them included.

  29. Die hard

    Giants are the logical choice for Garza given move by rival Dodgers and Garza ties to CA…

    1. Dumpgobbler

      Certainly wouldn’t rule it out.

      1. Die hard

        Their 3 AAA all stars Pill Kieschnuck and Monell all would add offense to Cubs

    2. X the Cubs Fan

      The Giants are too far out to trade for pitching.

  30. Ctoyo

    I’ve watched Garza’s starts since he was traded to Chicago, i was always impressed with his stuff and make up (character)…but i always thought he was “immature” when it came to pitching. It seemed his passion and stuff carried him through games at time, overpowering guys for K’s. It seemed that almost every game he started the 5th inning with 80 plus pitches, he always pitch to strike out instead of pitching to contact for the occasional quick inning. That said, i really believe he would be a big impact for a contending team come the playoffs, he always seems to come up big when really challenged. After he was clobbered by Cincinnati and making the comments about his catcher relationship he has been awesome. Yes, you can say hes faced some crappy teams but if you look closer and see how he did, this is were i think maybe something has clicked in Garza’s head. He’s been pitching deep in games and throwing his fastball in the 92-93 mph range as opposed to trying throw it through his catcher, but hitting 95 when needed. He seems to pitching for quick outs and thus lowering his pitch count early in the game. This is just an observation, i might be wrong. I wouldn’t mind him staying as hes a young veteran in a young team and unlike other rebuild projects the cubs have money to spend if need be, but if you can get a one top prospect and others , why not?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.