matt garza cubsIt’s a fair bet that, despite the All-Star festivities, we’ll still hear things about the Matt Garza shopping efforts …

  • If you were the Cubs, and you knew you were going to be dealing Matt Garza over the next couple weeks, how would you utilize the All-Star break to set up your rotation? Why, you’d try to minimize the number of starts Garza has before the 31st, yes? Kudos to the Cubs, because they’re doing just that: Garza is not scheduled to start again until July 22, which is perfect timing for so many reasons. First, it gives the Cubs a full week to try and deal Garza before he starts again. Second, it means Garza, if the Cubs take this thing to the Deadline, will start just twice more – July 22, and July 27. That second start, if he makes it with the Cubs, would set things up perfectly for the Cubs to be able to send Garza along at the Deadline so that he could start immediately for his new team. (Note: the Cubs aren’t being too crafty here – the 22nd would be the fifth start after Garza’s last start, even if it’s nine days later. In other words, using Garza that day is justifiable even if there wasn’t an incentive to align the starts in this manner.)
  • Jon Heyman reported yesterday that Garza had been told by the Cubs that he’ll likely be traded. For his part, Garza says he hasn’t heard anything like that. I have to ask … does it really matter? Whether Garza has been told or not that he’s “likely” to be traded, everyone knows that he’s “likely” to be traded. I suppose it would be a small, additional data point, but it isn’t the kind of thing that really clarifies in either direction. Once an extension became “unlikely,” a trade became something probably even more than “likely.”
  • Buster Olney says there’s an 80-ish percent chance that Garza is dealt before Friday. Dave Kaplan also hears that a deal is likely this week.
  • The huge-grain-of-salt-but-still-kind-of-interest-so-long-as-you-keep-the-proper-perspective insidery scuttlebutt (occurring in various locations, including the comments here at BN) has the Cubs very close to pulling the trigger on a Garza deal, with a couple teams having received permission to talk to Garza about an extension. That latter bit is something you frequently see come up in rumors about rental players, and sometimes the extension is actually put together. The ability to discuss and then ink an extension with a free-agent-to-be is of debatable trade value (some say it has no value, others say it has huge value; I fall somewhere in the middle, noting that the “first crack” has to have marginal value, and having an extension in place could give a team the confidence it needs to part with the prospect package that it was slightly nervous about losing). In Garza’s case, I have a very hard time seeing a receiving team giving him the kind of extension that is going to make him want to forgo free agency, when he’s so close to being the top pitcher available (and wouldn’t be tied to draft pick compensation). A receiving team is going to have to pay him essentially what he projects he’d receive in free agency (because it’s not like he’s even getting to choose his preferred destination), and I’m not sure I see why a team would do that. Maybe there’s a magical confluence of it being the right team with the right pieces and the right money, but I’m not so sure I see an extension playing out as part of the Garza trade talks.
  • (Which is not to say these kinds of talks aren’t happening. It doesn’t hurt to ask the Cubs whether you can engage Garza in extension talks – might as well see what kind of demands he’s going to have, right? – and I tend to think all kinds of angles are at least discussed when trade talks are happening.)
  • cubzfan

    [REPOST from other thread]

    Summary of the Garza situation based on rumors on this site and others:

    1. Cubs have narrowed the field down to 3-4 teams with serious interest.
    2. At least one of those teams, probably the Indians, is only willing to meet the Cubs’ asking price if they can sign Garza to an extension. This triggered a few actions.
    * The Cubs inform Garza’s agent that they have given permission for this other team to discuss an extension.
    * So that negotiation can happen in good faith, the Cubs also inform Garza’s agent that all offers from the Cubs are off the table and they will not negotiate during the other team’s window.
    * The Cubs inform the other interested teams of this move, and give any of them the chance to also negotiate with Garza’s agent. At least one time takes them up on it. Since these kind of pre-trade negotiations have to happen with the commissioner’s consent, and usually are a three-day window, they started yesterday and will end Wednesday. Thus, no announcement until after the All-Star game, as expected.

    If this is the case, then several things could still happen. I’ll put odds on them hoping to stimulate some discussion.
    a. One of the teams meets Garza’s demands, agrees to sign him to an extension if acquired, and the deal goes through on Wednesday (or soon after, depending on when Garza can take a physical.) (10%)
    b. No team meets Garza’s demands for an extension, making him realize that he won’t get much more on the free agent market than the Cubs would pay, so his agents come back to the Cubs with an offer they accept, and Garza signs an extension with the Cubs. (5%)
    c. No extension is agreed to with anyone, and the Cubs go through with a deal this week. (50%)
    d. No extension, but no deal until closer to the trade deadline, as the teams wait to learn more information about injured players, suspensions, etc. (25%)
    e. No extension, no deal, the Cubs make Garza a qualifying offer after the season and get a supplementary draft pick. (5%)
    f. Nothing doing, Garza stays a Cub, and gets injured again before the end of the year. (5%)

    Have I missed any possibilities? What do you think the odds of these outcomes actually are?

    • Tim

      You did a nice job covering all the possibilities. I hope for B, I really would like to see Garza stay here, his talent and make-up fit, and most importantly so does his age. It’s like the FO said a lot last year, “We need more Matt Garza’s not less.” I know they were just saying that to prop up his value, but the statement is still true. If they offered him 5/75, or 5/80 he’d take it. He loves Chicago, during the course of that deal he knows the Cubs are going to be in contention, and what player doesn’t want to be apart of the team that breaks through and wins a ring?

      I just don’t see any downside. If he signed a 5 year deal he would be 34 at the end of it, that is not ancient. Plus, the hope would be that in the last couple years of his deal some of the pitching that you have drafted should be close to major league ready. Hell, some should be major league ready. With all the cost controlled offense we have coming up through the system (The big 4), you can afford to put some money into pitching. I don’t see a down side to giving him a five year deal.

      • Mike W

        I agree with what you said Tim. I do not see the upside of losing a guy like Matt Garza. I use to want the Cubs to trade Soriano, but now I have realized Soriano does more for the Cubs than putting runs on the board. That man loves Chicago and he gives 100% everyday. He leads the team in stolen bases this season apparently his leg is healed up. He is a motivator for the young guys that are coming up. We cant lose Soriano due to his value in the clubhouse and power in the middle of the lineup also we will not get back anything worthwhile. So back to Matt Garza he reminds me of a younger Soriano with the way he loves Chicago and supports his teammates. He is a guy you want in October to fuel the team. He brings energy and can preform. He is only 29! and the cubs are suppose to be in contention in 2015 that means he will be 31 and how is that old for a pitcher?! The Cubs will be making a huge mistake letting Garza go just for prospects who may never play in the Majors. We cant have a roster of 25 rookies in 2015 and expect to win we need veterans! Also the Cubs are not a small market team they could be over 500 baseball right now if they invested some money in some big names!

        • On The Farm

          “but now I have realized Soriano does more for the Cubs than putting runs on the board”

          more importantly who will protect Rizzo in this lineup without Soriano?

          • Mike W

            Exactly. He has 2 years left on his contract just keep him and let him mature the young guns while batting 4th and giving protection to hitters like Rizzo and Castro.

            • On The Farm

              I am not sure who could even bat #4 on this team. Navarro? We still need Castillo to get ABs. DeJesus? Hopefully Valbuena can continue his success in the leadoff role, but even then, DeJesus isn’t exactly the most threatening clean up hitter.

              • Mike W

                Best bet is to keep Soriano until his contract is over and in 2015 have Kris Bryant the clean up hitter after Rizzo or have Kris Bryant 3rd and Rizzo 4th. Either way this lineup of DeJesus or Valbuena wont be here next year or when the Cubs are contending for the playoffs. Guys like Baez, Soler, Lake, Bryant, Almora, and Alcantara will be up in a couple years to round off the lineup that has Castro, Rizzo and Castillo already in it. Thats a deadly lineup.

                • On The Farm

                  Well unless a trade goes down, Valbuena and DeJesus will be around next year, so theortically DDJ could be #4 and Valbuena could leadoff next year, but it’s not ideal. Also Bryant probably wont be up until mid-2015 and even then is he going to be productive enough to bat clean up?

          • TWC

            Lineup protection is largely a myth.

            If you can’t hit inside fastballs, a pitcher is going to throw you inside fastballs whether you’re batting ahead of Alfonso Soriano or Matt Garza.

            • On The Farm

              While this is true, without Soriano in the lineup almost everyone is going to be looking at Rizzo to be the biggest bat in the lineup. In a season where it appears he needs to make adjustments, having the added pressure of being the best power bat in the lineup is something I would prefer he didn’t have to struggle with.

        • BigPappa

          I agree. I think at this point it would if you have to pay most of his salary to trade him, it would be better to keep Fonzie.

          • Eternal pessemist

            Agree, agree,agree. Prospect(s) gotta be substantial in trade unless serious salary relief offered. Otherwise, sori has better value to this team!

    • Funn Dave

      Good list–I even agree with the probabilities. One question: I know the Indians have talked about an extension, but have they really indicated that they’re ONLY willing to trade with an extension?

  • On The Farm

    “A receiving team is going to have to pay him essentially what he projects he’d receive in free agency (because it’s not like he’s even getting to choose his preferred destination), and I’m not sure I see why a team would do that. ”

    The Dodgers don’t care, they will pay him whatever he projects to make, because the more money you spend on FA, the more likley you are to win a World Series.

  • sclem21

    If anyone wants a good laugh, check my timeline @seanclement21 on twitter. BCB got pretty mad when I suggested that their ‘possible trades’ for Shark were absurd…ones like
    Bradley and Skaggs, or Zimmer, Yordano and Aldaberto Mondesi.

    bleachernation for lyyyyyyyyfe

    • Crash

      I see no reason to come here and ask for cheerleaders. Read this site, read BCB, or read both. It simply doesn’t matter.

      • sclem21

        I don’t need cheerleaders, just thought people would find it funny. Sorry if that bothered you. I see no reason for you to make comments trying to make me feel bad. Read my comments or ignore them. It simply doesn’t matter.

    • DavidC

      Like people don’t propose ridiculous trade ideas here also? Get real. I read both because they are both great sources for Cubs information and discussion, and Brett himself has done a lot of great work at BCB and has a good relationship with Al. If that’s all you have to tweet about, I’m sorry for you. If you don’t like it over there just stick to BN, it’s pretty simple.

      • sclem21

        There’s a difference between readers proposing ridiculous trades and writers, IMO. I was simply pointing that out. This is a forum to discuss the Cubs. A Cubs site posted some things that were pretty out of touch (again, in my opinion). I thought people here might be interested in that. I dont take myself seriously enough to think that a simple comment here would sully anyones relationships. I dont see why you would either. But thanks for your faux sympathies. If this a place for Cubs discussion I dont think that’s really encessary though…ya know since I was just discussing.

    • MichiganGoat

      “bleachernation for lyyyyyyyyfe”

      okay that line really makes me question what you find as funny 😉

    • X the Cubs fan

      thats really about what it would take.

    • MichiganGoat

      And can we stop with the slamming of other sites? Of course everyone here love BN more than any other sites but it seems like everyday there is a slam against BCB… just not sure why?

      • sclem21

        It really wasn’t meant as a slam. If anything the the ‘for lyyyyyfe’ part should have given that away. It’s still my opinion that article was nuts and I think that’s fair to share. I also think it’s funny that a reader would state that they disagree and then get slammed for it by the writer because they ‘were laughed at on twitter’.

        But really, honestly…I wasn’t trying to ruffle feathers.

        I just don’t think that Shark for Yordano, Zimmer and Aldaberto is even close…same with a lot of the other proposals there.

        My apologies for disrupting the class. Hope there’s no hard feelings.

  • On The Farm

    I posted this earlier this morning

    “I had a dream I woke up this morning to Garza being traded to the Giants (which is weird because that’s not even in my top two of preferred destinations for him), it was a big deal because they got the trade done before the All-Star game and yes Crick was in the deal with two other guys.”

    Just wanted to point out that I clearly have been so engrossed in Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch this month that even my subconsious I can’t wait to read Brett’s peice on the trade. I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing when you start having BN dreams.

    • Turn Two

      How do you respond to this

      • On The Farm

        Work has been slow the last two weeks, I just think I have been spending too much time on the site.

  • http://Bleachernation Lou Brock

    Per my SF guy he hears Garza rep agency is calling around trying to drum up West coast interest in trading for him. He says right now only team out there with interest is Arizona. He thinks Garza wants to pitch for Angels or Dodgers if he remains a FA over the offseason.

  • Joe

    Injury concerns are a big reason Garza would want to sign sooner rather than later. If he has any sort of injury at the end of the year, it could cost him millions. His loss from that could be greater than any gain from a free agency bidding war.

  • AD

    What’s everybody’s preferred destination for Garza?

    • Patrick G

      Cleveland if we can get Salazar or Toronto if we can get Sanchez. It all depends on the return

    • Mick

      1. Dodgers-Zach Lee or Joc Pederson w/throw-ins

      2. A’s-Sonny Gray and Nolan Sanburn

      3. Blue Jays-Aaron Sanchez + throw-ins

      3. Red Sox-Barnes and Swihart

      4. Indians-Bauer and Salazar – this would probably be dependent on an extension

      5. Rangers-Olt and Luke Jackson, or preferably, Martin Perez and Luke Jackson

    • On The Farm

      For me its:
      1. Any trade in which you can land two pitchers from Boston or Swihart
      2. A trade involving Perez and other with Texas
      3. Dodgers trade centered around Zach Lee
      4. Dodgers centered around Pederson
      5. Indians landing Bauer
      6. Phils for Biddle
      7. A’s
      8. Jays

      • Mr. B. Patient

        Good choices, OTF, but I’d switch the order of the two Dodger choices. Pederson is a better player.
        I know we need pitching, but I’m of the mind set of getting the best player available. We basically have 2 positions (3 if you count Castillo) covered by ‘core’ guys, and there are no guarantees from our farm system.
        Also, the 2014 draft is heavy on TOR college pitchers, and the projected 2015 FA class has a significant amount of good pitching.

        • On The Farm

          I wouldn’t mind getting Pederson at all, as you said I was placing the emphasis on the pitching, but watching Pederson in the future’s game (granted it was just a handful of ABs) I was throughly impressed with him.

          I value Lee a little higher than Pederson mainly for he is close to MLB ready and we have no impact arms close to ready, and while the 2014 draft is loaded at the top with good arms, adding a guy like Lee would give us a rotation of Shark-Wood-Jackson-Lee and even if our 2014 is a fast riser (a la Leake, Gausman..) He would be a pretty darn good #5 pitcher.

          • Mr. B. Patient

            I say, since we can’t decide, the Dodgers should just give us both of them. Win-Win for the two of us (and the Cubs).

            • On The Farm

              Well they might as well, they don’t have room for Pederson in the OF anyway with Kemp-Either-Crawford-Puig fighting for time already.

    • Nate

      I keep reading (mostly from Buster Olney) about the Cubs asking price staying high. Is it possible to get 2 of Barnes, Owens, Webster and Renaudo and maybe a Pat Light? (obviously using Boston as an example) This is an all pitching trade, leaving out Swihart, because of the supposed emphasis on pitching. I’d be ecstatic. I don’t think anyone else can give this type of pitching prospects and it could explain the Schierholtz rest if he’s included.

      • On The Farm

        You also left out Workman, who did start for the Sox this weekend, but I would love it if he was one of the two pitcher aquired based on his MLB readiness. A Workman-Ownes trade would be pretty solid.

        • Nate

          I left him off because looking at MLB prospect watch (the easiest place I find for rankings) he falls in a middle group with Britton and Johnson that I don’t know what to do with. The four mentioned are all top 100 prospects and I want two for Garza and third guy who’s lower down but close to ready.

          • On The Farm

            Oh yeah, I just wanted to point out how adding a guy like Gregg and/or Schierholtz could maybe lead us to getting a Webster-Owens and then an inclusion of Workman. It would completely decimate the Sox pitching (well maybe not considering they would still have Barnes, Renaudo, and Ball), but they could get two-three valuable contributors for their playoff push, and the Cubs get one MLB ready guy, One guy who is close, and a darn good lefty prospect.

            • Nate

              That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Here’s to hoping

  • AB

    What are the chances that Garza is traded without an extension, and then signs with the Cubs? I heard that somehwere, and it sounded interesting.

    • Turn Two

      Always talked about this time of year. In my opinion this front office gets what it wants. If they wanted Garza to be a big long term piece, they wouldn’t let him get to free agency where the price will only go up.

      • Eternal pessemist

        If he stays healthy. Let’s not completely discount his well-documented health history. Which is why he should have already offered the Cubs a health risk discount. Makes me think ending up in Chicago is not his first choice:(

    • jacob w


      • On The Farm

        I would say they are better than one in 10,000, but 1% seems more likely.

    • Funn Dave

      Possible but pretty doubtful.

    • Patrick G

      If they don’t want to pay him the extension now, he’s going to demand more in the offseason, especially if he has a really good 2nd half and pitches well in the playoffs. Sadly, I don’t see it happening.

    • willis


  • Caleb

    We look at the teams that might be interested, and the value garza might get, but flip it around: who out there do the cubs really, really want? Maybe some stud where we have to throw in bc he’s super valuable? A couple stud pitchers somewhere? I know we’ll take the best value we can get, but in a perfect world who would we like to see most in a return?

    I’m also okay with extending him, assuming a reasonable figure can be agreed to. As already said, he’d be a great pitcher that even with a 5 year deal would only be 34. You know that’s going to be when we’re ultra awesome.

    • X the Cubs fan

      i want Bauer

  • Crockett

    I’m confused how the Rockies/Reds just announced a deal.

    Explain this to me!?

    • Jp3

      Maybe it’s only frowned upon if its a trade anyone cares about?

    • On The Farm

      Somehow I don’t think Galarraga being traded (and being assigned to AAA) is going to steal the show from the HR derby tonight.

      I am not sure who would frown more MLB or Cincy fans.

      • On The Farm

        Shoot meant Colorado fans.

    • Brett

      It’s a minor league deal, and it’s the morning. I think that probably puts it in the kosher range.

  • Bilbo161

    Is there really some rule about no trade announcements during the All Star break or is it just some unwritten thing? Sounds really stupid to me. If the All-Star festivities can’t beat out trade news then maybe they shouldn’t even bother with it.

    • On The Farm

      Even if the All star game can beat out the trade news its still bad for baseball. If you are a professional sport you want as many headlines as possible on as many days as possible. Imagine if Garza got traded the same day as the All star game, which gets the top headline. Now if there is an unwritten rule, MLB can capitalize on owning the top headline for the All star game on Tueday, and the Garza trade the next day. It’s just good for business to not have everything happen at once so you can remain in the spot light as long as possible.

  • Die hard

    Oakland for 3 kids and Cubs pay salary– he stays FA

  • Nate Corbitt

    “Buster Olney says there’s an 80-ish percent chance that Garza is dealt before Friday. Dave Kaplan also hears that a deal is likely this week.”

    It’s not official until Bruce Levine weighs in.

    • On The Farm

      Also an AL scout says Garza’s value is really high and the Cubs “phenomenal spot to land a tremendous deal”. That sounds a lot like “winning”

    • Crockett

      You mean nothing’s official til Bruce reports it 20 minutes after everyone else?

      • On The Farm

        He is reporting Chicago Cubs now announce they are open to extending Garza. They remain 50-50 on trade-resigning him.

  • johnny chess

    Everything is tied to the suspensions. Once it is cleared up the
    dominoes will fall. Garza will end up in Texas and Olt plus a High pitching
    prospect or 2 mid-level to Cubs.

  • The Dude Abides

    That’s pure genius pushing Garza out to next Monday. How does this FO keep coming up with this stuff? They are light years ahead of every other team.

    Genius, pure genius, that’s all you can say.

  • Chris

    if you are a subcriber and like junk food…dominos is giving away a free medium carryout pizza to the first 3,000 peeps who enter…thanks to Tim Lincecum.

    • Chris

      not related at all to the post — just figured I’d pass it along.

    • AlwaysNextYear

      Awesome thanks man it took two seconds to do, A free pizza is a free pizza.

  • Starlin Backer

    On Soriano, you have 2 options. He has value and is hot so now is the time. You either pay most or all of his salary and get legit prospects in return, or you get salary relief and a nothing prospect. I like Soriano but I can’t understand those advocating we keep him through the end of his contract. He will be gone from this team when it is time to win so why keep him?

    • On The Farm

      Probably because he can go on streaks when he gets hot and carry the entire team if need be, or we can trade him and try to find someone else to fill his spot.

  • Eternal pessemist

    Depending on his actual value to a team $3M? $4M? You can trade him and plug his spot next year with another 3-4 million dollar guy. What’s the point of doing this? Until we have prospects pushing into the majors we might as well keep him, but i’m glad to see Theo not giving him away for now!

    • Starlin Backer

      The point is to save a ton of $ and utilize that money strategically-when it’s time to win, or get a prospect or two for when it’s time to win. Does it matter right now whether we finish 10 games out vs. 25? Actually, if 25 out, we get a better pick!

      • Eternal Pessimist

        I agree that it doesn’t matter if we are 25 out or 50 (well…maybe 50 out would be too much shame even for my beloved Cubs). The point is, the Cubs will try to get some more relatively cheap guys to fill the same role Sori plays now until those prospects are ripe.

        The Cubs are going to eat virtually all of his contract $’s, so you aren’t really saving anything there. If Sori gets 17 Million per year (can’t remember what his current rate is) and we eat 14 Million of it, we are only getting 3 Million in relief which we have to spend on someone else next year. No money saved.

        If we get any kind of a prospect maybe it is worth it, we have a net gain overall, but Sori seems to have been a positive enough presence over the last couple of years that I think he may have more value in our locker room, and he is one of the few regular RBI guys left on the team to ease our pain slightly in 2014.

        • Starlin Backer

          You will either get salary relief or a good prospect. Soriano is hot right now so you don’t have to just give him away as was discussed last year. You are willing to get nothing so you can be entertained next year. Not saying you are wrong to feel that way. I am willing to go through a little more pain next year if it means a better 2015. Soriano will not be your starting left fielder on a championship team-not at his age.

  • Starlin Backer

    BTW, David Kaplan is living in another world. The Theo regime is smarter than past Cub GM’s. we will not trade players at their lowest value, when they are struggling. Then you get squat. Remember the trades for Jenkins, Lee Smith, Rafael Palmeiro (we’re not satisfied with his RBI production in year 1)? I know the Cubs have a rich history of this. No more!

    • Crockett

      Pretty sure the Palmeiro deal involved some clubhouse politics.

      • TWC

        Ya think?

      • Rebuilding

        It was either Palmeiro/Dave Martinez leaving or Sandberg. Those guys weren’t going to be able to be in the same clubhouse. I think the Cubs made the right choice

        • Starlin Backer

          Agreed but they still got next to nothing. My main point still holds. Kaplan said that Castro could be traded and I contend that Theo and Company can’t possibly be that dumb-or nearly as dumb as past regimes.

          • Rebuilding

            Wait, we got Paul Kilgus in that deal! The Wild Thing did some nice things in ’89. It was a bad trade for sure, but to be a little fair to Jim Frey Palmeiro was a Grace clone with maybe 15-20 HR power before some testosterone help. Hard to predict that kind of HR “surge”

  • Cast

    Say we land Mike Olt in a Ranger deal. Where exactly would he fit into the plans? 1st, 3rd, RF? We already have a strong left side with Castro, Baez, and Bryant (however I feel that he’ll eventually move to the outfield.) Rizzo will be at first, and in the OF we have Almora, Soler, Lake, and if say Bryant moves to the outfield him.

  • 5412


    I hope Garza’s agent talks money with a lot of teams. Then I want them to come back to the Cubs and make them an offer because he wants to stay.


  • John S.

    So he won’t have to face the Rocks at Coors? … is he lucky or what?

  • Pingback: Obsessive Matt Garza Trade Watch: Rangers Uptick? Red Sox Downtick? Eight Other Teams Involved? | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()