Quantcast

matt garza cubsThey’ve been the favorite for some time, and if Ken Rosenthal’s sources are to be believed, the Rangers are going to get their man.

Rosenthal reports this morning – according to two officials with knowledge of the negotiations – that the Rangers are “close” to acquiring Matt Garza from the Cubs. Nothing is final here, so let’s be certain to continue proceeding cautiously here. Indeed, Bruce Levine just spoke with Garza on his flight to Denver, where the Cubs are playing the Rockies this weekend. Garza said he’d not heard anything from the Cubs, and obviously hasn’t yet been traded.

That the sides have obviously reached an advanced stage of negotiations makes you wonder if the Rangers and Cubs have had the basic parameters of a deal in place for a little while, but have been negotiating at the periphery for some time (hence the call for best and final offers yesterday).

The names we keep hearing are third base prospect Mike Olt, and pitching prospects Luke Jackson and C.J. Edwards. Does that mean the Cubs will get all three for Garza? Nope. Does it mean that any of those three will be involved? Not necessarily. Does it mean they were already in the deal and the Cubs wanted more? Not necessarily. But I have to believe their names keep popping up from a variety of sources for a reason. (And those three players together for Garza is a plausible, albeit strong, return. Rosenthal mentions only Olt and Edwards, for whatever that’s worth. Those two, only, would also be a plausible return.)

Peter Gammons reminds folks this morning that young Rangers pitcher Martin Perez is out of the deal, but also believes a deal is close. Obviously things are getting hot, but you already knew that.

UPDATE: Jon Heyman adds pitching prospect Neil Ramirez’s name to the mix as one who had been discussed, according to a source. Heyman also mentions Roman Mendez, but doesn’t explicitly connect him to the talks.

UPDATE 2 (8:50am CT): I missed Patrick Mooney’s new report earlier, but a source told him late last night that the Rangers were still not crazy about the steep asking price, and were in the advanced stages of moving on to a Plan B. That sounds like a bit of negotiating to me, but you never know. The question now is whether Rosenthal’s info came after Mooney’s.

UPDATE 3 (9:20am CT): Tim Brown from Yahoo – who always seems to swoop in during rumor season with solid info – says the Cubs and Rangers haven’t reached the point of exchanging medial information, so a deal isn’t quite that close.

UPDATE 4 (9:30am CT): MLB.com writer T.R. Sullivan, who covers the Rangers, has a source who says there is “no deal yet,” but that the sides have been working hard on getting this done. Sullivan makes sure to caveat that although something “could” get done, it isn’t done yet. For what it’s worth, Sullivan’s initial report on trade talks between the Cubs and Rangers mentioned a smattering of prospects that were not particularly captivating.

UPDATE 5 (9:43am CT): In a separate update (which actually preceded the prior one), Sullivan says that the names being discussed are Olt, Edwards, and Ramirez … and that the Rangers have put Luke Jackson off-limits. Makes you wonder if the current negotiation is about getting Jackson back on the table in place of Ramirez. After 2011, Ramirez was a fairly well-regarded pitching prospect, but a rough go at AAA in 2012 knocked his stock down a bit. He’s had to settle for pitching (well) at AA this year as a 24-year-old. The stuff is well-regarded, but there are control issues. If it’s the case that the Cubs prefer Jackson, I could understand why.

UPDATE 6 (9:43am CT): This is from the same Sullivan piece, but I wanted to give it separate billing here so it didn’t get lost: Sullivan says the Rangers are hoping to get a deal done in time to have Garza start tomorrow night against the Orioles.

  • Afinch

    Hoping Boston makes a last minute push after the Bucholz news yesterday. They’ve got several young appealing pitching prospects!

    • deej34

      Brett – I may have missed it but didn’t someone reference Olt’s struggles had something to do with his eyes/vision? But it was correctable? What is the issue?

  • Jp3

    I like Edwards, his almost 12 Ks per 9innings are crazy good. Olt is going to be the X factor I think

  • aCubsFan

    One report last night also had a catcher in the mix of players from Texas.

  • Chad

    Alfaro (#4) is their only Catching prospect in the top 20 of the system. That would be a nice kicker.

    • Eric

      I would prefer Alfaro to Olt. (I don’t think we’re getting Olt + Alfaro but I’ll gladly sacrafice Olt for a young, still very prospecty catcher).

  • Mat B

    These deals rarely include only one player going in either direction. Who do you think the Cubs will be including as a “throw in”?

    • Eric

      Dioner Navarro would be a good guess.

      • CubFan Paul

        Why? The Rangers have enough catchers and DHs.

      • Mat B

        I can’t see the Cubs giving up Navarro. They don’t have anyone to take his place. I was thinking more along the lines of a high A or AA player.

    • aCubsFan

      I recently read a report where Texas was looking for a catcher, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they included Navarro. Also, I read where Navarro mentioned he’d like to get traded to someplace where he could be a starting catcher.

    • Dcubsfan

      A little more than a throw-in, but mlbtraderumors listed interest in Soriano as well last night (but not in the context of any mega deal)

  • Eric

    I’ll wager that if Rangers would give us Sardinas instead of Olt, the deal would have already been announced.

  • On The Farm

    Question, if Edwards and/or Alfaro are parts of the deal, how long do they have until they need to be put on the 40 man?

  • baldtaxguy

    Love to see a 3rd pitcher being discussed rather than Olt. I can’t find a way to like adding Olt, even if its (rumored) for a corresponding flip for more pitching. Don’t like, I’m sour on the Olt.

    Ben Rowen’s statistics look intriguing – closer, set-up option with Jackson, Edwards – I could get excited about that. Likely requires something more from the Cubs.

  • Stogie

    If I were a Rangers fan, I’d be bouncing off the walls about this deal. The Cubs are being raped.

    • Eric

      Really? Two to three long-term controlled prospects for 11 starts of Garza? I don’t guess I follow.

      • mdavis

        i think you’re over valuing 2 months of Garza. This would be a solid return for the Cubs. Jackson and Edwards are putting up really good numbers, and Edwards has a frame where you think he could be real nasty when he’s older.

      • Kevin

        The Rangers will forever thank the Cubs if this trade gives them a World Series title. Texas wants to win now and the Cubs need building pieces for the future. This trade should be a win for both clubs.

    • baldtaxguy

      Please explain…considering this is a two-month rental, and assuming an extension is not an option now or signing doesn’t happen in the off-season.

    • David Salmon

      You don’t even know how right you are sir

      • baldtaxguy

        Put the words down, why such a deal is worse compared losing Garza to FA and receiving a 2014 compensatory pick.

    • MichiganGoat

      It’s better than what we’d get if we didn’t trade.

    • Dumpgobbler

      What? A lot to like about Jackson and Edwards. We keep hearing Olt, Edwards and Jackson. Also we heard reports about the cubs not desiring Olt. We heard them trying to get Sardinas or Alfaro instead. My guess is they are trying to get the Rangers to bend and offer Sardinas/Alfaro, Edwards and Jackson instead of a deal with Olt.

      If the deal were just Edwards and Jackson I’d still do it. With a Garza deal, you’re trying to get the most you can, but you have to realize he isn’t going to fetch a kings ransom because its just a few months on control left. What were aiming to do is get value equal to a compensation pick + a couple months of a real good pitcher. I would say an Olt, Edwards and Jackson package more then meets that criteria. If we get Alfaro, Odor, Sardinas, Gallo or a couple other guys instead of Olt, its an even further win.

  • Stogie

    Garza is the top pitcher to be traded. All we’re getting is three guys who are irrelevant to the Cubs for the next 3 yrs. Theo and Jed need to be tutored by small market Milwaukee. Melvin got new star Segura in their Greinke trade. I guess Milwaukee cares more about getting better.

    • mdavis

      are you really comparing Greinke to Garza….?

      • KBD

        When Healthy Garza is much better than Greinke

        • Edwin

          Since 2006 Garza and Greinke have both thrown over 1000 innings. In that time, Greinke has a better ERA, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, FIP, xFIP, almost twice as much WAR, more wins, and fewer losses.

          Greinke is cleary the better pitcher of the two.

          • Feeney

            Thanks. Was about to post the same thing.

        • frank

          No, he’s not. Look at xfip, fwar, and fwar/9ip over the last 5 years, and Greinke has been superior. Greinke has been more durable and won a Cy Young, while Garza’s never even made an All-Star team. No measure is perfect, but the stats show that Greinke has clearly been the better pitcher, even when both are healthy.

        • roz

          That is a ridiculous statement.

    • Steve123

      Greinke is also an ace, and you don’t even know what the cubs got back..comparing apples to oranges

    • Dumpgobbler

      I would argue that if you put a Sardinas, Edwards and Jackson offer side by side with Segura, Hellwig, and Pena offer, it would be hard to choose in each respective time. Hindsight is 20 / 20. No one could have predicted Segura’s rise. He was a 50ish MLB prospect when they received him.

    • TulaneCubs

      A return of Luke Jackson, CJ Edwards and Mile Olt is an outstanding return. Honestly, at the time of the trade, it could be seen as better than the return for Greinke last year and pretty comparable to the guys we traded FOR Garza.

    • Jp3

      Actually more like 4-5 years irrelevancy of said prospects but I knew what you meant. As long as they have projectable big league talent I’m fine with it. At the beginning of the year Brett had a theory on what kind of return we’d get on Garza THIS YEAR and if I remember correctly Brett would have squealed at the names being thrown around today. Garza was way more desirable last year pre-injury and another year of team control while this year not so much.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        Garza’s performance, the shrinking market for top-end pitchers, and the huge number of buyers all conspired to drive Garza’s price much higher than I would have projected it would be at this time back in March. So, yes, relatively speaking, I’m thrilled with where things are right now.

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          But let’s not forget: these are just rumored names, and we don’t know that all are included in these theoretical offers.

          • Jp3

            Yeah, I’m just saying its a nice surprise with the rumored names and things have fell just right for us to be able to maximize his value and now we can pretend last years injury didn’t really happenπŸ˜ƒ

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              I agree. It’s conceivable that the return this year will be in the ballpark (not quite, but in the ballpark) of what the Cubs would have gotten last year. That’s just nuts.

              • On The Farm

                When you’re the belle of the ball, you get to pick your date

    • frank

      Greinke has been a better, more durable pitcher throughout his career than Garza has been though; and there are no scouts, etc., who believe that the Cubs will get the same kind of return for Garza than was had for Greinke. On top of that, we don’t know the return yet. Although many here (including me) are not crazy about Olt, he’s still a top 50 prospect by most accounts, and the three pitchers that show most often in the discussions are all pretty high upside guys. I too, would like more immediate, impact help–but the market simply may not be offering it.

    • baldtaxguy

      I suppose we can play the hindsight game to counter last year’s Grienke deal and find a few starting pitcher rental deals that did not work out for the seller. I think you are missing what to compare the return against.

    • WalkinshoesON

      This just has to be a trolling comment, right? First off, nobody has any idea who we are getting at this point, and even if the names being tossed around do end up being correct, you certainly have no clue about their potential impact in three years. Second…Theo and Jed need to be tutored by small market Milwaukee? You mean the team with the worst record in the N.L. Central and one of the bottom five farm systems in all of Baseball? You must certainly mean a lesson in futility.

      Third…Jean Segura was the 55th ranked prospect in Baseball (according to Baseball America) when the Brewers acquired him in 2011…which means that: A. He would rank right around where C.J. Edwards ranks currently (#73 according to Sickels) and B. You would have blasted that exact same deal if the Cubs were trading Greinke at that point in time instead of Milwaukee. Fourth…Greinke is a better pitcher than Matt Garza, plain and simple…you will usually receive more talent for a more talented player.

      I really am not trying to come across as overtly mean or antagonistic, but your post is rife with ignorance, conjecture, and you clearly did no research when trying to make some passive-aggressive disparaging remarks about the current front office.

    • CubsFaninMS

      Does someone need to call the wahhmbulance?

      Word on the street is that elite prospects are more coveted than before due to the recent changes in the collective bargaining agreement, making it now more difficult for a Greinke-like prospect package. Also, Greinke has clearly better numbers than Garza over his career (see comments below). I believe Garza is a #2. Greinke hovers between a #1 and #2. In addition to that, no one (including Milwaukee) expected Segura to be what he is today. Segura could be the next Jerome Walton. You’ve seen him for half a season. I think a “Winning” Charlie Sheen quote here is way too early.

  • DReese

    If they trade Garza for these 3 I will be upset but I trust this FO and there is always a plan. We will just have to wait and see what it is.

  • Austin8466

    Give me Olt, Grimm, and Jackson and this deal is done yesterday.

  • DB

    I’ll take Edwards, Jackson & anyone else not named Olt.

  • DReese

    I really don’t see the point in dealing for Olt unless they plan to flip him. I believe our big 4 are all better than Olt and we really need some impact pitching.

    • ETS

      Olt is another bret jackson – do not want

      • Feeney

        Or maybe another Adam Dunn.

        • DReese

          ooooooh I think that is exactly what this FO is looking for.

          • Feeney

            I think every FO is looking for 40 home run pop with plate discipline. The problem is finding it.

      • DReese

        Agreed, isn’t their number 2 or 3 prospect a pitcher. We will take that guy instead.

      • Jim

        And what if Olt is the next Chris Davis? I remember there being rumors a couple of years back between the Rangers and Cubs with the Cubs getting Davis and no Cub fan wanted that deal to happen either. I’d take my chances with Olt. If he fails, we still have Bryant on the way.

    • Feeney

      Pre-2013 prospect rankings had Olt at 22. I know he’s struggled this season. And they may plan to flip him. But a guy with that kind of pedigree as a prospect and that power at AAA? That’s something the Cubs don’t have. He is closer than the “Big 4″. If he’s the best we can get for Garza I am okay with it.

  • todd mccombs

    Olt is closer to a right handed Rizzo at third base – Great defender – great power – will hit around 270. One of the top prospects in baseball. This is a great get if the Cubs can get him.

    • ETS

      Apparently your data is all at least a year old.

  • CCunt

    I love it when people get all bent out of shape about the return on a trade based on rumors and speculation.

  • Cheese Chad

    I think it’s weird that people are so low on olt. I’d be worried if he were having his second straight bad season and they didn’t know why. This is his first setback and they’ve pinpointed an eye issue. Dude is still talented. If this was the deal a year ago we’d be thrilled.

    • Joey Jo Jo Junior

      His age is what worries me. Why is this guy still in AAA? And even worse–why isn’t he completely destroying it there?

      • On The Farm

        Isn’t he is AAA because he is blocked by Beltre and the longer they keep him in AAA at 3B he still has more value then if they shift him to OF

      • Ricky

        There’s a guy named Adrian Beltre in front of him.

        • Jp3

          I think it’s not really important that while at Round Rock last night Olt was batting 8th and Manny Ramirez was hitting 4th….

        • Joey Jo Jo Junior

          Why is he not in the outfield then–at least temporarily? They are looking for a right handed power hitter, right? Why aren’t they using Olt??

          • On The Farm

            Maybe because he is just coming back from his eye issues and want him to get comfortable again playing everyday. You realize this was a guy who put up 28 homeruns in AA ball last year right?

    • EvenBetterNewV2.0

      Then we would have been disappointed this year. Dude is struggling horribly at AAA (2nd time around) after fixing his eye issues. He will be 25 and struggling in AAA. That is the dude you think we should be jumping up and down for? No thanks

      • Stinky Pete

        My understanding, (All second hand reading, no actual research.) is that he was killing or at least doing significantly better since taking eye drops.

        • Cubman23

          Yeah, his recent game logs have been good. Seems to me like the perfect time to get Olt. We’re buying low and could potentially strike gold.

          • Feeney

            His OBP is consistently 100 points higher than his BA which I like. He strikes out a lot but with that eye and that power the strikeouts are bearable. He has OPS .939 since July6th.

      • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/653cc0c5f0eded621ab13b4f631de7da.png Cizzle

        This is his first stop in AAA after posting a .980 OPS last year in AA. He struggled badly in April, but his June OPS in AAA was .880.

  • cubchymyst

    Not seeing any pitcher that is ready to be inserted into the MLB rotation so far listed as a possiblity in the Garza deal. I’m looking at the players who could potentially make up the starting rotation next year for the Cubs if they do not get a pitcher for Garza who will be ready next year.

    1. Samardzija (Lock)
    2. Wood (Lock)
    3. Baker (already some talks about him coming back)
    4. Cabrera (needs to be on the 25 man)
    5. Villanueva
    6. Arrieta

    Those are the current players who I could see pitch for the Cubs next year. Of course a free agent pitcher could be added to as well (there are a few interesting ones). I think the rotation still shows potential to be at league average or above next year even without a MLB ready pitcher coming back for Garza.

    • DReese

      Even if we get a pitcher it does not need to be an impact ready to go guy but I think the FO should focus on impact talent maybe a year or 2 away. More upside.

      • cubchymyst

        I would like to see a impact pitching talent come back for garza, but I’m just pointing out that the pitching talent doesn’t have to be MLB ready. Problem with going to low in the minors is the risk increases as well so the Cubs want to get 2 or 3 of those types to help mitigate the risk some.

      • Cubman23

        The problem is that the Rangers don’t really have any impact pitching talent on the table. Perez is not available, so you have to dig to get to it. I’m in agreement though that you get as much talent as possible because you can then flip it for impact players when necessary.

    • WalkinshoesON

      The Cubs find themselves in kind of precarious position when figuring out what is most important to them with regard to a potential Garza trade. It seems to me, (from simply reading the tea leaves) that they can either acquire more talented players who are further away from contributing, or receive players who may be closer to a major league roster, but who are not quite as naturally talented.

      Give me more talent every time. Although they may be further away, and thus more of a wild card proposition, it is the best way to possibly procure an impact player.

    • Cheese Chad

      Rusin could be. Maybe Cabrera

      • On The Farm

        I think both end up in the bullpen, but Cabrera could surprise me.

    • On The Farm

      Does Arrieta have any more options after this year? I was thinking he didn’t.

      • cubchymyst

        Arrieta will still have an option left next year if I remember correctly.

    • Jeff K

      You should have E-Jax on that list as well.

      • cubchymyst

        Crap forgot him, which means there is 2 spots technically open and if Baker comes back 1 with a few player who could fill it in.

        • On The Farm

          I would really hope Arrieta wins the spot in the rotation, I realize fixing him should be a process, but hopefully spending half a season in AAA and working with Bosio and Johnson in the offseason will be enough for him to be ready to go for next year.

    • Andrew

      If you include cabrera, I think you should also include Hendricks as a possibility too. Maybe just depth to begin the year but with a chance to start later.

      • cubchymyst

        Hendricks is going to AAA to start next year to see how his stuff plays against more experienced players. He might start some time in the 2nd half but not before. Carbrera has to be on the 25 man because he is out of options and has more upside, He will likely be given the opportunity to compete for a rotation spot.

  • Boomtown

    They gotta get more than 2 prospects back, Feldman
    Brought back 2 mlb ready pitchers arrietta, strop plus
    International spending $$$. Can’t imagine them
    Taking less than Olt, Edwards n Jackson. Even tho maybe I rather
    See Olt replaced but if not that’s pretty good. 2 top 10 prospects n Edwards may have been top 10 by end of year

    • On The Farm

      They got two MLB ready projects for Feldman. Strop is a work in progress and we sent Arrieta back to the farm to fix his issues. In a Garza deal you want the most high end talent you can get, and if Texas is the only team offering it, you take it.

  • Nate

    I understand people are down on Olt but this time last year most people would have been drooling over him. I think this is a great return. Yes I’d rather see Boston come in late with a pitcher as the top piece but Olt is still a highly rank prospect and talent is talent. Also, Edwards is looking really good this year A ball and looks ready for a promotion and you could say the same for Jackson. We could now have 8 to 10 top 100 prospects. That’s huge

    • ssckelley

      and had Garza not gotten hurt Olt would have been the center piece of the deal with the Rangers.

      • http://It'searly Mike F

        and they wouldn’t have used a lottery pick on Bryant, and of course he isn’t playing well.

        And here’s the thing, Texas wants to pawn him off and he’s blocked by Beltre as much as he isn’t ready or anywhere neat. they meed power in the outfield and could be getting him AB’s at a variety of places. He’s not a good choice and clearly when they traded for a guy he was blacking last season and then turned around and made Bryant a lottery pick he wasn’t someone they were lusting for.

        He’s not Rizzo, Rizzo struggled at the MLB level and so will he only his struggles will be more consistent. Rizzo didn’t have the negative trending issues Olt does. It is ok for all you who drink the kool aid, lets just quit making up projections, the metrics aren’t with you. And I’ll admit the odds are always against prospects or suspects. But a lot of you need to come to grips with the fact you grossly undervalue a 29 hear old big arm in Garza.

        • ssckelley

          So if the Cubs had gotten Olt last year they would not have drafted Bryant?

          Seriously?

        • Kyle

          What we had at AAA or higher would have had absolutely nothing to do with whom we drafted. And there’s no lottery.

  • ssckelley

    Olt, Jackson, and Edwards would be a crazy good deal for the Cubs. Two very good pitching prospects and a top 100 3rd base prospect who many scouts are high on. I shake my head every time I see someone bash Olt and yet on the other hand people like Valbuena at 3rd because of his glove. IMO, in Olt you are getting Valbuena’s glove but with the potential to do a whole lot more at the plate. Even if it does not work the Cubs have 2 more solid 3rd baseman coming up through the system and then there is this Bryant guy. You still have 2 very good, young, pitching prospects to add to the arsenal.

  • Harry Ramirez

    I agree, this is a solid return, however just to balance it – don’t forget how desperate the Rangers are. They have, I think, 5 or 6 pitchers on the DL. They need Garza and they don’t do us any favors, it’s not like we have to thank them for giving up Jackson or Olt.

    Like I said, I’m okay with Jackson and Olt. don’t forget that Olt is still a top 50 prospect. It wasn’t too long ago when eveybody in baseball wanted him as the centerpiece, so to get him as the second or third piece is excellent. Let’s see what happens, I trust the FO, let’s give them some credit, they have more info.

  • josh ruiter

    What about Soriano, Garza and maybe a kicker (Vitters/Jackson type) for Sardinas, Alfaro, Jackson and Edwards? We get a pretty big haul from Texas, they fill both of their current needs as well as keep Profar and their top pitching prospect Cody Buckell. Spun that way it could be a deal for both teams, probably meaning the Cubs eat Sori’s contract but that is fine.

  • Jp3

    I think this seems like the perfect time for a potential “add Soriano to the package and eat his salary to upgrade the package of prospects” move. If they’re are reluctant to give up prospect X for a Garza/Valbuena duo we could always say “hey we’ll throw in Soriano dirt cheap” if that’ll sell them on the deal. On the other hand, adding Soriano to any proposal gives him the opportunity to get us Dempstered at the buzzer.

  • Jim

    If we do get Olt, the big question is whether we stick him in AAA or bring him straight to the bigs. If we bring him up, does Valbuena move to 2B? Do Olt and Valbuena platoon? Is Barney and/or Ransom the odd men out? Maybe one of these guys will get traded …

    If we send Olt to AAA, what happens with Vitters? Demotion? Bench? Release?

    I like Ransom off the bench and spot starting. I would bring Olt directly up and see how he performs over the last two months of the season.

    If Olt is in this trade …

    • chrisfchi

      I wonder about Vitters as well. I was high on him when he was drafted but now he’s been a disappointment.

    • On The Farm

      Well I think if Olt plays as good as D as the scouts say, he would be the everyday 3B (assuming he goes to Iowa) and then move Vitters to LF since his D has always been questioned at 3rd anyway. Getting Olt wouldn’t be a bad thing for Vitters because he could move to an easier defensive position and can focus on getting the bat right. That is if he can stay healthy.

    • ssckelley

      This is not an issue, Vitters was not going to stick at 3rd anyway. After his rehab assignment I would expect to see Vitters playing more left field if both he and Olt are playing for Iowa.

      Do not give up on Vitters just yet. This has been an injury plagued year for him and he does not turn 24 until late August.

    • CubsFaninMS

      I believe they’ll keep him in Iowa until he proves he’s ready for the show. Look what they did with Rizzo and what they’re doing with Arrietta. Sounds like a logical plan for them to play Lake in the outfield until Barney or Valbuena are traded (I expect one of them to be traded before the deadline) then move Lake to third. Hopefully Lake can be moved back to the outfield towards the end of the year if Olt starts ripping a new ***hole in AAA.

      • CubsFaninMS

        And just to throw this in there. I do believe Scheirholtz or DeJesus will be traded if the front office is offered a good prospect package in return, more likely Scheirholtz. I really like Ryan Sweeney and I hope he comes off the DL a starter. He has potential.

  • todd mccombs

    If not for olt vision problem(which is behind him) Olt would be the top prospect in the organization. Crazy to think the Cubs get 2 power pitchers and Olt. If it is 2 pitchers and olt it would be a huge over pay.

    Crazier to read some of these posts that are anti Olt. One guy posted better to hold on to Garza and get a draft pick – around 38 or lower. One of these pitchers would be better than that.

    If this is the trade where is Lake going to play – Olt is killing 3A right now – I would think he would be the starter at 3rd base for the rest of the season. Is someone else in this trade or is there another trade- Barney to Cleveland is always a great rumor – If rumored Soriano to texas does he agree to it- is that the hold up. Is that why we are getting a 3rd pitcher.

  • Jp3

    Brett, why did all this Garza nonsense trump the series preview?😜 That lasted on top for about 5 seconds, you must be expecting Garza updates huh? Hehe

  • Tom A.

    Any chance Theo can use Tunney to get concessions from the Rangers or Red Sox ?

    • DReese

      Can we trade our alderman?

      • ETS

        There needs to be a comment of the day section to this site so that this comment can be in it!

      • roz

        Tunney and some cash for an ATBNL.

  • bryan

    id take olt, and in the offseason group him with bjax and maybe marco hernandez OR someone in our top 10 that we can afford to lose and go for a few other teams top pitching prospects a la Rizzo for cashner. I have to believe olt and bjax would get us someones top 5 pitching prospect and add a young player with promise to sweeten the deal.

    • ETS

      you can’t trade a bunch of broken pieces for one elite piece.

  • North Side Irish

    Edwards, Jackson, and Olt isn’t a horrible return, but it sounds like Texas is the one who had leverage somehow. Cubs get no major league ready pitching and Texas holds on to their top position prospects. Jackson is a reliever, Olt is an almost 25 year old minor leaguer with a strikeout problem, and Edwards is a 155 lb pitcher in A ball. I’d rather get one B+ piece than three Cs. Hard to believe this was the best deal on the table…and that assumes that all three are in the deal.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+