Quantcast

Unfortunately I am still on the road, so I can’t provide context or analysis right now, but be informed that the Cubs today acquired pitching prospect Neil Ramirez from the Rangers as the PTBNL to complete the Matt Garza trade. I’ll have more as soon as I’m able.

  • Bigg J

    I think that was the best move instead of going after 2 other prospects

  • Bilbo161

    Wish I knew who the other two were.

  • North Side Irish

    Bruce Miles ‏@BruceMiles2112 8m
    #Cubs claim RHP Neil Ramirez off waivers from Texas and assign him to Class AA Tennessee. That satisfies the PTBNL in Garza trade.

    This doesn’t sound quite right…

    • MichiganGoat

      Why doesn’t it sound right? Because of the waviers? I’m
      Guessing that was just an procedural move.

      • North Side Irish

        Yeah…I guess everyone has to pass through waivers this time of year to be traded. Must be some kind of agreement that no one else would claim him.

      • Andrew

        I think North Side is referring to the wording… see Jon’s comment below.

        • Andrew

          And… didn’t let the screen refresh before North Side replied. I’m an idiot. :) Miles could’ve worded that tweet better, though.

    • JB88

      I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Ramirez is on Texas’s 40-man. This might have been a necessary evil.

      • Jon

        How does this work? Do they just tell the other teams not to put in a claim because this is a “PTBNL” ? I’m guessing all the other teams operate by honor code on this ?

        • nkniacc13

          If the player is on 40 man he must be put on waivers at this point of year. As far as to why no one else claimed him its because it was pretty much a given that he was going to the cubs now or after the year so no reason to claim him when you know that Texas had to pull him back because he was already in a deal

  • willis

    Well, I suppose they weren’t too worried about his injury. Looks like he struggled last year but has been better this year with a lower WHIP and higher K rate. Anyone know if he’s still on the shelf or active?

    • C. Steadman

      active, and could pitch for the smokies soon…last pitched the 18th

    • jkppkj

      Ramirez has had 3 starts on the 7th, 13th, and 18th for Texas’ AA affiliate since coming back from injury. Combined 7.2 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 2 BB, 10 K.

      http://m.milb.com/player/519166/#nav_last_ten

  • Austin8466

    I think if you look at this trade through the big picture lens, we got an absolute haul for Garza from Texas. CJ Edwards has been lights out in Daytona, Grimm has been great in Iowa, we get a guy in Ramirez, who has had a fantastic bounce-back year in 2013, tearing up AA ball, and we get a former top 20ish prospect who has faltered a little, but still has all the tools, and is trying to put it all together.

    We got all of that for a Garza rental. Kudos to the front office for making this trade happen.

    • Jon

      I would pump the brakes on calling it a ‘haul’. (at this point)

      Grimm has been fairly terrible at Iowa, same goes for Olt. This trade is all about CJ Edwards(results, so far so good).

      • willis

        Correct. This trade is about what Edwards becomes. Grimm may be a spot bullpen guy at some point, and we’ll see what Ramirez can do, but his numbers aren’t just awesome. And Olt, well, he’s Brett Jackson 2.0 with bad eyes.

        Definitely interested to see what Ramirez can do, but Edwards is the star of that trade and the one guy with a big chance to be really good.

      • Sean T

        The trade for Garza was definitely not a “haul.” Olt = BJAX 2.0, edwards = prize, Grimm = bullpen arm, Neil Ramirez is nice but nothing special. I don’t know, the trade is hard to grade right now because we don’t know how guys are going to pan out but at first glance this trade is a definitely not haul though

        • Edwin

          Matt Garza is not the type of pitcher you get a haul for.

        • mjhurdle

          of course it would be nice to sit back and wait until all the players have finished their careers with the Cubs before judging the trade.
          However, Front Offices dont have that luxury.

          I think it is safe to call this a “haul” when you look at the potential that the Cubs got in return for the potential they gave up.
          They gave up the potential of a Matt Garza for 2-3 months.
          They received a lot of potential in return.
          Will it all hit? who knows. but judging just for what they gave up in comparison to what they got, im comfortable calling it a haul.

          • Austin8466

            ^ This

          • Sean T

            I believe a lot of ppl have a different definition of what a “haul” is. I’d consider it a haul the cubs stole prospects that the Cubs shouldn’t have been able to attain in the trade. Edwards was great but not much else in that trade was. It was Quantity over quality in this trade. Yes Garza was a rental but we didn’t acquire one prospect that was even clearly in the Top 100. Olt definitely NOT a Top 100 guy anymore. CJ Edwards has potential to be but is very fringy top 100 for now. Trust me you can tweet and ask any of the Top prospect guys asking if CJ Edwards is in their Top 100 and they’ll say he isn’t or will say he’s just out of it. Trust me I know I did just that. But I love the kid, I think he’s great and will definitely eventually will be in it, but I think a lot of people just want to see him pitch in AA and show that his arm strength is for real and can be sustained over an extended period of time.

            • http://www.frenchrocks.net Ian Afterbirth

              “I’d consider it a haul the cubs stole prospects that the Cubs shouldn’t have been able to attain in the trade”

              That’s a “steal” not a “haul”.

              A “haul” has to do with quantity (assuming there’s some quality among the quantity).

        • Richard Nose

          Definitely Olt is BJax 2.0. Ramirez and Grimm don’t do much for me. I’m not directly comparing them, but maybe something like Rusin and McNutt 2.0. Low ceiling’s/fizzling out. Ramirez has been dinking around between AA and AAA and back and forth for 3 seasons now. The only positive I see there is a change of scenery, wait to see them actually throw, let Bosio get ahold of them. Neither one is on any type of regular or advanced path up any prospect ladder to the bigs. I wouldn’t call it a haul either. 4 nice names, 3 of which aren’t as nice as they were a year ago.

          • Adventurecizin’ Justin

            If 4 players who have ranked in the top 20 of strong system for a pending free agent isn’t a haul…then is there any such thing as a haul?

          • Chef Brian

            Since we are pumping the brakes, how about easing off the “Olt=Bjax 2.0 and Grimm=Rusin 2.0″, etc. It makes you sound like a Pseudo Intellectual prospect snob. First off Olt was damn near untouchable last year and he is struggling through a concussion recovery which is no small thing especially when it comes to hitting a baseball thrown in mid 90′s. As far as the other prospects that came in the trade can we let these guys play a full season in our system before we start relegating them to bust/2nd class prospect status? This trade from a potential stand point and frankly from any stand point you choose was a nice haul for Garza especially considering what other teams were getting for a rental, and this has been universally agreed upon by most baseball experts. Have a little faith…

            • Richard Nose

              My point was that my faith is lacking based on their track records. Sure, let’s see what they do in our system. Ramirez made 18 starts in AA in 2011, it’s 2013 and he’s…pitching in AA. I apologize for not being excited about his ceiling. Someone on here said something like ‘these two pitchers are back-end type guys and we have plenty of those right now” and I agree. I also agree when you say it’s hard to evaluate what you can get in a market, so I’m not saying it was a bad deal or a good deal, because you can only get what you’re offered, yeah they got 4 baseball players in return, nice, but I’m only excited about one of them. “Pseudo intellectual prospect snob”? Big words. Because I’m interested in the quality of a prospect? Hmmm.

        • Adventurecizin’ Justin

          For a rental…it is a haul. Waaay more than I expected.

          • cubsfanforever

            agreed. Way too many GM’S on here today who must know more than Theo and Jed. I tend to think this will be a great deal when all is said and done.

            • Jon

              Calling it a “haul”, before you can evaluate any of the players at a big league level, is just as bad as saying the trade “sucks”.

              You need to see how the players develop.

              • cubbie Forever

                So then we just have Muskrat typing reports off the wire–no conversation.

                • Jon

                  and meme’s

              • mjhurdle

                Actually, no you don’t.
                You evaluate a trade for what the conditions were when the trade was made.
                If the Cubs traded Darwin Barney for the future HoFer Syndergaard and the next Mike Pizza the Mets have with that Single A catcher, we would be right to say that is a “haul”.
                If Barney then turns into a .400 hitter with + power, and Syndergaard and the superstar catching prospect both flame out and never contribute at the big league level; that wouldn’t change the fact that, at the time, the trade was a “haul” for Darwin Barney.

              • Chef Brian

                I guess we can get together next decade and discuss whether the trades are good or not since it’s apparently bad form to have a discussion amongst fans about the pros and cons of our favorite team. Jesus, lighten up.

            • willis

              It was a quantity haul for one guy, sure. But are any of these players going to come close to what Matt Garza gave you? Probably not. Can Edwards, maybe, but it’s a long time to see that.

              So, one good arm, two pitchers who have struggled at the AAA level, and a AAA 3B who is hitting .185 in a very hitter friendly PCL. I just wouldn’t call that a straight up haul for a guy who was a very good major league pitcher.

              They got what they could for someone they obviously were dying to get rid of…good for them. To paint this trade as a haul is a little much.

              • mjhurdle

                I think the chance of these prospects giving us what Garza would have given us (in 2 months) is actually fairly high.

            • http://Jplgxk AlwaysNextYear

              To many guys who assume they know it all sounds better. I’m sure so many of them scout for some MLB team.

      • mjhurdle

        Grimm actually hasn’t been bad for Iowa at all.
        He has started 6 games, couple have been pretty good, couple have been average, one below average and one horrible (his first start with Iowa).
        Overall i think he has pitched fairly well, and seems to be recovering from his rocky start in Iowa.
        Definitely not “terrible” at all.

      • MichiganGoat

        If we really want to fully evaluate this trade we have to go back to signing DeRosa where this trade chain begins.

      • http://ehanauer.com clark addison

        It could turn out that Olt is the least significant part of the deal. He doesn’t seem to have recovered from his concussion, whether it’s physical or mental.

    • MikeW

      Grimm has been great in Iowa? Might wanna check again.

      • AB

        Looks pretty good to me:

        9.48 K/9

        3.45 K/bb

        0.3 HR/9

        • Jon

          1.50 WHIP

          • Noah

            WHIP is a terrible way to judge a pitcher’s success. Too much of that equation (the H part) relies upon how good the defense behind the player is.

        • C. Steadman

          and…
          10.1 H/9

        • Drew7

          In the PCL.

          • C. Steadman

            yeah he’s still an average pitcher in the PCL…not a good or great one…but he does only have 7 starts

  • Jon

    You know what else satisfies the PTBLN? Long walks on the beach, late night docu-dramas, candlelight veagen dinners, and yahtze.

    • Wilbur

      Ouch, now that is one heck of a condemnation …

  • JB88

    Gotta love Ramirez’s K/9 (11.70). He looks like he’s got a starter’s frame to boot.

  • Sean T

    Cubs have a collection of Neil Ramirez types. Good but not great pitchers. We have a bunch of potential #4-5 and possibly #3′s but will most likely be back end of the rotation guys. I know it hard to find #1′s so I don’t expect we draft one but #2′s I feel like we really don’t have any. Pierce Johnson needs to pitch at Tennessee against better hitting prospects before I can judge if he’s really has #2 potential. Vizciano had electric stuff 2yrs ago the last time he pitched, I’m willing to bet it comes back but the chances he’s able to stick in the rotation are slim to none.

    • Jon

      There are hoping some of the #4-5′s with good stuff can be valuable bullpen pieces (if the starting thing doesn’t work out)

      • gocatsgo2003

        Seems to me like this is part of the plan — develop a significant amount of depth in the back-end of the rotation/bullpen types and allow them to compete to sort themselves out. The next phase is likely about acquiring more “high-ceiling” pitching prospects to match our positinoal prospects.

    • On The Farm

      If I had to choose between geting Neil Ramirez or Matt Garza’s production for two months in a lost season I would take Ramirez every time. We got CJ Edwards out of the Garza deal and his K numbers suggest that he could have “#1-2″ if you want to put it that way. I don’t know what you are complaining about because no one got elite pitching talent at the deadline this year, because no one gives it up anymore. We are going to either have to trade the farm to get an established pitcher, or draft one. That’s how the game is played now.

    • willis

      All the cubs have up and down are 5ish type rotation pieces with the exception of Johnson and Edwards…maybe Cabrera, who are #3 ceiling pitchers IMO. Vizcaino will be a bullpen arm if he’s every healthy. Any #1/2 power arm is going to have to come through FA or trade. They just aren’t there in the minors.

      • Joe

        …or draft or international signing.

        • willis

          I’m talking about someone that could help soon. Of course they could draft one next season or a young international signing, but it doesn’t help the team for 5-6 years.

      • jkppkj

        I just think back to the Doug Davis, Rodrigo Lopez and Ramon Martinez visits to the rotation in 2011 and I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I realize that even if Travis Wood, Edwin Jackson and Shark all went to a bar together and got all of their arms broken in a brawl, we still wouldn’t have to stoop to the level of Doug Davis, as we have a handful of acceptable options to give a try in a major league rotation. Whatever becomes the cream of the crop from the collection of back end rotation guys could be a pretty solid way to eat 500-600 innings a year.

      • Richard Nose

        I keep dreaming about Cubs-Mets doing a deal. They could clearly use some of our bats and we could clearly use some of their arms. Is there a rule against trading prospects for prospects (no major league experience)…Bryant for Syndergaard? Castro-Soler for Syndergaard-R. Montero?

        • Jon

          No need to give up Bryant or Soler if you want Syndergaard :)

          • Richard Nose

            Tell me how! You don’t think he’s that good? Equating young hitter value to young pitcher value is a hell of a talent.

            • Jon

              Sorry inside joke…some people are convinced the Mets will hand over a top 10 prospect for Castro alone…

              • mjhurdle

                technically not true.
                The idea is that the Mets would probably entertain giving Syndergaard + for Castro alone.

              • Richard Nose

                I thought that’s what you might have been getting at.

    • Scotti

      “Vizciano had electric stuff 2yrs ago the last time he pitched, I’m willing to bet it comes back but the chances he’s able to stick in the rotation are slim to none.”

      That is what was said about this guy:

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cashnan01.shtml

      He starting. Giving up on Vizcaino starting makes no sense.

  • Hack Wilson

    I suspect that a rotation with five #3 type pitchers would be pretty effective.

  • cubsin

    This puts the roster back up the 40 (plus the eight or so players on the 60-day DL). So if we activate Baker at some point, someone else has to go. There’s a very long list of candidates available for that honor.

  • terencemann

    My reaction to this trade:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQaH3-LK54

  • Aaron

    Jonathan Gray has that potential to be a #1 pitcher. 3-0 with 28 strikeouts in 19 innings. I’m not sure the Cubs made the right decision in this year’s draft by taking an impact 3B over a impact starting pitcher. Good pitching stops good hitting. Time will tell.

    • Drew7

      TINSTAAPP

    • Jon

      No

    • Jon

      I mean, it’s like you gloss over the fact Bryant has been tearing up Boise and Daytona, just an awful post. This site needs a personal delete button so you can take that back,

      • JB88

        I suspect a lot of people would be awfully busy if that were an option …

      • http://obstructedview.net Myles

        If anyone needs a delete button, it’d be you, because that’s a pretty shitty thing to say to someone who has a valid opinion. Bryant is doing really well this year. You know who is doing even better? Jonathan Gray. He didn’t even say Bryant was having a bad year, just (correctly) stating that good pitching can dominate good hitting.

        • Jon

          That’s a myth. And elite hitting thirdbaseman are even more rare than #1 starters. It was a stupid opinion and post and he should feel ashamed.

          • cubsfanforever

            you should just go away. Really just go away and quit being annoying

          • Richard Nose

            hahaha I award him zero points and may god have mercy on his soul.

      • C. Steadman

        and good hitting can also dominate good pitching…way too early to judge this draft…I think Theo and Jed know more about drafting than we do so I trust their opinion…we’ll see in a couple years if they made the right choice

        • Scotti

          “…and good hitting can also dominate good pitching”

          When a truly top pitcher is “on” he doesn’t get dominated by anyone.

          • mjhurdle

            disagree.
            see Pujols, Albert or Cabrera, Miguel

            • Eternal Pessimist

              An narrowing it to ‘when a truly top pitcher is “on”‘ is pretty silly. How about when a truly top hitter is “on”. How about Soriano’s recent hot streak for the Yankees. He was pulling some swings out of his ass and just couldn’t miss for a while.

    • C. Steadman

      also theres some dang good pitching prospects in the 2014 draft and I bet the Cubs pull the trigger on pitching this time around…a guy like Tyler Beede or Jeff Hoffman could be the Cubs pick (both throw high 90s with big 6-4 frames)..where as there arent any hitters with 70 or 80 power that Bryant has

      • Richard Nose

        True dat. This year does like the year to take that approach.

    • On The Farm

      I am just surprised nobody jumped on him for saying Gray is 3-0 as part of his argument for why passing over Gray was a bad idea. He did include Ks so I guess that could be why, but I could care less who many minor league wins Gray has. I don’t think it was the wrong move to draft Bryant because you don’t find many “80 power” guys, but the guys with “80 fastball” don’t always know how to command it or end up with TJS.

  • Chris

    97 out of the pen w/ that kind of K/9 sounds like a win to me. It might fast track him to the bigs as well…maybe he could move back into a starter position down the line. That’s what I would do w/ him.

    Who is he going to replace as a starter anyways? Wood, Samardzija and Jackson under contract for the next few…and we have plenty of guys to be 4-5 starters. Just my opinion…

  • http://It'searly Mike F

    I never bought the haul thing. You have to let it play out, but that said, Olt has been flat out terrible. His AAA Iowa numbers make it an unfair insult to Jackson to even compare him. He should either be shut down or demoted to AA like Jackson. Whether the eye or headaches, this guy, who is turning 25 in days, is hitting nothing, striking out at an alarming rate and not hitting for power.

    Edwards and Ramirez for Garza, could be a good trade, could be a bust, just not a haul.

  • Jon

    I would define a “haul” as the Brewers trading Greinke for Juan Segura. Now Garza isn’t quite as good as Greinke, that said, but that is one of those trades that was a big time mistake. Unfortunately for the Cubs, alot of the really dumb GM’s were not in buying mode this deadline. They did the best they could.

    • Adventurecizin’ Justin

      No one thought the Grienke trade was a haul last year.

    • Senior Lake

      Greinke and Garza are both 29 year old MLB pitchers. Greinke has a career WAR of 33.5, Garza’s is 15.1. To say that Garza “isn’t quite as good as Greinke” might be a bit of an understatement.

      Maybe C.J. Edwards is a vital piece in a trade for a TOR arm at some point (or maybe he turns into one). I can’t decide if it’s more ridiculous that people are arguing over the slang meaning of “haul” or that they are already decisively judging the results of trades made all of 1 month ago.

  • jt

    A #1 SP gives an advantage in playoffs. He also logs a lot of IP during a season which saves the pen. But a team can also have a bunch of guys in the pen and in the minors capable of being real good who can log those IP. So yeah, 5 #3 SP’ers could be made to work if they have 10 good RP’ers with a turnstile to the DL and shuttle to Iowa.
    That may not work in a playoff game against Price though?

  • ruby2626

    For definition of a haul you might want to check the Feldman trade out. When all is said and done that trade will likely grade out much better than the one for Garza. Funny that when the Feldman trade was announced I thought we got nothing in return, seeing the stuff those 2 pictures have I definitely have rethought that.

    • Jon

      this

    • willis

      Yes, Feldman trade>>>Garza trade. No question.

    • On The Farm

      Well I am still not sure what we got with Arrieta, but giving up on Strop seemed way premature by the O’s. I think there are even studies on this, but RPs who make a lot of apperances or IP in one year tend to suffer the next year. I feel like that was going on with the Strop situation. Even if Strop is a Setup man I still feel like that trade was a win.

  • johnny chess Aka 2much2say

    Comparing minor leaguers to other minor leaguers is bret-diculous.
    How they perform in the Big’s is all that matters. MLB is finding out the farm systems are overcooked and bursting with ML ready talent.

  • Mr. B. Patient

    Did the Cubs get more for Garza than the value of a 2nd round draft pick. If you answered yes, the Cubs got a haul.

    I bet Grimm, Ramirez, and Olt all play some for the Cubs next year.

    Odds are, any 2nd round draft pick will never play for the Cubs.

    Then throw in a high risk/high reward guy like Edwards.

    Seems to me the Cubs did okay.

    • Jon

      Of course they did ok. I have no problem with the trade. I just think saying “They got a haul” is just verbal salad.

      • Mr. B. Patient

        Yes, Jon. The word ‘haul’ is overstating it.
        Without knowing what other offers were out there, I think the Cubs made a decent take.At worst, Ramirez and Grimm are 6th/7th starters, which, as we know, can be quite valuable on this team.

      • DarthHater

        “Garza trade nets Cubs a nice prospect haul” – USA Today

        “an impressive five-player haul for Matt Garza” – Sports Illustrated

        “a substantial haul” – baseballnation.com

        “a nice haul for Matt Garza”—Anthony Castrovince, mlb.com

        Q.E.D. :-P

        • Randy

          Thank you for that . Truly needed

    • willis

      I’ll take the bet that all three play for the cubs next year. And really, who cares if they play? Don’t you want them to play and contribute. Sure Olt could play in a few games, hitting .111 and whiffing away while the other two come in and give up boat loads of runs. When all that happens, is it still a “haul”?

      Edwards is the stud of this trade and how it’s looked at down the line will come down to how he ends up developing/not.

      • Mr. B. Patient

        Willis. I was never a Olt fan, but NOBODY is this bad. Are they? Get him healthy, and if he shows well in the spring, have him hold 3rd until Baez/Bryant are ready. Hey, isn’t time the Cubs get a little lucky?

        My point was, they got players who are fairly close to helping at the MLB level, which is more than you can say for a 2nd round draft pick.

        • willis

          Oh yeah I agree there…these three guys are closer to making a showing than a supplimental pick would be. I’m just not a fan of any of the three being impact players unless they turn Ramirez and Grimm into relievers down the line, which maybe they could be very good.

          I love Edwards. I think two years from now he’ll be looking to break into the rotation if he stays healthy. IF that happens, then this trade will look very good. If not it was just dumping a player they didn’t like for meh.

          As far as Olt, I didn’t know he was this bad. I knew he had been struggling, but so far with the cubs he’s been just plain awful. I don’t know if they can turn that around even enough to keep 3B warm for a little while.

          • wvcubsfan

            When in the world did you turn into a negative Nancy? We didn’t trade Garza’s talent level, they trades 3 months (max) of that talent. What they got in that deal has to be considered far above the future value remaining on his contract. If any of the three come up next year and spend significant time it’s a huge win. Anymore than that and it’s the icing on the cake.

            • willis

              I don’t think I’m being negative. I’m just saying that I don’t buy any of the three players that are close to ML level prospects that were returned for Garza. I do not believe any of them can give even three months of what Garza would have given. It’s just an opinion, I could be completely wrong. Those three were quantity pieces around the gem, which was Edwards.

              It’s just my view. I don’t believe as it stands right now, any of those three give the cubs the quality that Garza brought. But that’s ok, because I think Edwards will develop into billy bob badass. And if he does, this trade is a huge win.

  • Aaron

    What a dialogue with the topic of Jonathan Gray and Kris Bryant. Guys, don’t get me wrong here. I really like Bryant and understand that he’s been tearing it up so far. I think he could be an impact player at 3B for the Cubs. The point I was making is the need for #1 and #2 SP. When it comes to the making the playoffs and winning championships, if you have those two positions filled, you have an excellent chance of winning.

    It’s clear that the Cubs need for impact starting pitching. Their minors are full of hitters, but not a large number of front line starters. Theo and team have stated this fact already. My point was that Gray could be that key young pitcher that we need in the organization. But with pitchers, you never know how they’re going to develop and do in the big show. That’s why we need quantity as well.

    • C. Steadman

      agreed that Cubs need more SP..but here’s what I think they were thinking…Bryant has some rare power that you dont find very often(80 rated) as where as Jonathan Gray has great stuff,but he isnt as rare of guy as Bryant is. The 2014 draft has some great college arms toward the top of the draft..including a Vanderbilt are that our roving pitching coach is probably familiar with..The cubs will be at the top of the board in the 14 draft as well and will probably select one of those college arms..therefore picking a great 3b power bat in 13 and a good SP in 14

      • C. Steadman

        also in the MLB draft you pick the best available player and dont try to draft for needs because of the fact that the MLB draft is full of busts and surprises up and down the ladder…guessing the FO figured Bryant would have a better career than Gray

      • cub2014

        Seems like 3B and #1 starter are the 2 hardest
        players to come up with. But pitchers are more
        of a crap shoot most dont even
        get to the bigs

    • wvcubsfan

      Oh NOES the Cubs traded Josh Hamilton

    • Jackalope

      The need for pitching is definitely there, but the injury/bust rate is historically much higher for pitchers than hitters near the top of the draft. There’s a significantly higher chance that Bryant makes it to the big leagues and becomes an impact player.

  • Jackalope

    Interesting ads on this site, especially today. I’m quite satisfied with the size of my breasts, thank you.

    • DarthHater

      Too much information. ;-)

    • Myles

      The ads are directly related to the sites that you are searching and visiting. Just an FYI.

  • Die hard

    If Cubs re- sign Garza then they have to give all back

    • DarthHater

      Your comments are much funnier when the humor is unintentional.

  • cubbie Forever

    Jim Bowden reports this a.m. that Cubs screwed in Dejesus debacle. Nationals just received 22 yr old lefty flamethrower for him from Tampa. Anybody know anything about it.

    • DarthHater

      Damn waiver rules, always screwing the Cubs!

    • cubchymyst

      How the two moves were separate. The Cubs had to deal with the Nationals or keep DeJesus. If the Nationals were not willing to give up anything of value then it was impossible for the Cubs to obtain any value besides taking DeJesus contract off the books. The fact that the Nationals got to deal with a team in contention that had a greater need for DeJesus allowed them to get more back. If anything the MLB should change the Wavier Rules saying once a player is claimed they can not be put back on waivers by the claiming team. This would prevent teams from claiming simply to re-waive so they can deal with the teams in contention.

      • DarthHater

        Of course, if one really wants to look for fault with the FO in this, one could ask why they couldn’t have made this trade with the Rays before August 1. But there could be lots of reasons why the Rays were not willing to make the deal at that time.

      • cubchymyst

        Just realized I misread the tweet. I still think the wavier rules need to be changed though. The Nationals just day traded DeJesus.

      • Dr. Leroy Quackenbush

        I thought it was very odd that DeJesus did not bat/play against the Cubs at all last wekeend. He may have but I did not see him in the starting line-up any day.

        • On The Farm

          I know he had a groundout to Rizzo last night, so he even played when he was claimed the second time. But you are correct, he didn’t get any starts.

      • cubbie Forever

        Thanks for good info. But as Darth just mentioned–why no trade before deadline–this appears kind of ugly right now.

        • TWC

          … because the Rays didn’t want to then?

          Sometime you just gotta go w/ Occam.

          • Hansman1982

            I love how everyone is forgetting that DeJesus was just back from the DL at the deadline. That would have tempered most teams interest.

            The fact that the rays are giving up a guy in a deadline deal leads me to believe there isn’t much to this guy.

        • DarthHater

          Why no trade before deadline may be a legitimate question, but it is one that has many non-ugly possible answers. This appears kind of ugly right now only if one assumes facts not in evidence.

          • Jason

            Our lovely Kim has been assaulted by those Washington city slickers

            • DarthHater

              [insert Bill Clinton joke here]

              Sorry, folks. But jokes about Bubba aren’t really political at this late date, are they? :-P

              • Mr. B. Patient

                They will be when he’s ‘First Dude’.

                • Jason

                  So are you saying that Bill and Hilary screwed Theo while Jed was lookout. Our lovely Kim an innocent bystander.

                  • DarthHater

                    I knew you guys could find a way to make me sorry for bringing it up. Congratulations.

                    • Mr. B. Patient

                      Didn’t mean to, Darth. I just like saying ‘First Dude’.

                    • DarthHater

                      :-D

          • Good Captain

            The only thing that I find plausible here lies in the timing of the trade deadline and DeJesus’ recovery from injury. If memory serves me correct, some teams may not have been convinced to their satisfaction that DeJesus had recovered fully from the injury. It appears TB’s interest in DDJ is relegated to this season only so timing matters at least in their case.

      • Dustin S

        I agree it sounds like a good candidate for a rule change. I’m surprised it hasn’t come up more before, or maybe it has and it’s just not noticed often.

    • gocatsgo2003

      He also said “22-year old prospect,” which obviously reads quite differently. Also noted that it seems like everyone wins because TB upgrades in LF, the Nats get a prospect, and the Cubs save money, so… let’s not make this incident something more important or significant than it is.

      • cubbie Forever

        No, the Nats save money and get a pitcher. We save money. Theo is hiding out today. Kaplan says he is un-able to contact him.

        • gocatsgo2003

          They save money… that they never would have been required to pay without submitting the waiver claim. They essentially gamled $1.5MM that they could instead get a prospect and hit on it.

      • Herp A. Derp

        More money for joe ricketts makes me enjoy cubs games more!

        • Mason

          Kevin Kennedy on his show just blistered the Cubs for tanking the Dejesus non-deal.

          • Chris

            What else could they have done? Not traded DeJesus for $ and been on the hook for 3+M or so (buyout plus remaining $ owed for this season)? I think this is more of a kudos to Rizzo/Nationals than a diss to Theohoyer/Cubs. That was just a shrewd move by Rizzo.

            For what it’s worth I’d rather not have DeJesus this year and save $…who cares? Did DeJesus make any difference this year as far as a Wins vs. Loss perspective? Prob not…but let’s say he would’ve eeked out 1 win this season (a big assumption)…that could drop us down a peg for next years draft pick.

            • Mason

              Kennedy said several clubs wanted Dejesus before tradeline–they knew he was healthy but Cubs held out and then deadline hit. This is a mess-something not right. Jed just needs to interview and straighten it out.

              • Mark

                I hate the Nationals and Bryce Harper. I cannot believe how bad they screwed us. We should never deal with Washington again.

                • DarthHater

                  Clown suggestion, bro. :-P

              • gocatsgo2003

                Why does ne NEED to do anything?

              • Deacon

                Yes, fully agree with this. The Cubs held out for too much at the deadline and got left being exposed after the deadline for why teams didn’t offer much for DeJesus pre-deadline —- knew the Cubs wanted salary relief.

                You can’t make as many trades as the Cubs did for cash and not have teams figure put what they’ll settle for when push comes to shove.

  • #1lahairfan

    Probably going to be Enny Romero, which sucks because he’s probably a mid rotation guy.
    (He was rated as the Rays’ #8 prospect by John Sickels at the start of the year.)

    • gocatsgo2003

      Yeah, I would highly HIGHLY doubt that it is someone that highly-regarded in a waiver wire trade.

      • Chris

        maybe Felipe Rivero?

        • #1lahairfan

          Maybe.

      • #1lahairfan

        Whoops I didn’t realize how good he’s been this year. Hopefully I’m wrong.

    • Hansman1982

      If Friedman gave up anyone of value I’d be shocked. He’s been quoted before that they will never be buyers at the deadline.

  • Joycedaddy

    Do you guys think Garza could potentially re-sign with the Cubs in the offseason? He hasn’t put together a 2nd half in Texas that I think is deserving of commanding top FA money, so is that too crazy of an idea?

    • http://vdcinc.biz 70′scub

      No, Cubs were glad to dump Garza!

  • Crockett

    Are there different 40-man roster implications for Ramirez because he was claimed on waivers vs dealt outright?

  • TommyK

    According to Baseball America, Ramirez had the best change-up in the Texas League.

    I love the debate over whether this qualifies as a “haul”, as if haul has some percise definition. The real question is if the Cubs got a “buttload” of talent in the deal. How many decent prospects are in a buttload?

    • DarthHater

      All the prospects in a buttload are turds, by definition.

    • josh ruiter

      Ramirez does lead the league in strikeouts, despite missing time with DL stint in July….could he be a future closer, late inning guy?

  • http://vdcinc.biz 70′scub

    Washington waiver grab is about a team that has no class!

  • http://vdcinc.biz 70′scub

    Washington equals Toronto

    • Jason

      The Cub Reporter says Tampa implicated in complicated wavier wire scheme to get Kim Dejesus.

  • josh ruiter

    As far as discussing haul or not, I think you have to put it into perspective of what the Cubs originally gave up, Garza’s history, his control, the return and then evaluate. So let’s do it now real quick.
    Cubs and Rays original trade for Garza:
    Cubs get:
    1. Fernando Perez
    2. Zach Rosscup
    3. Matt Garza
    Rays get:
    1. Chris Archer
    2. Brandon Guyer
    3. Hak-Ju Lee
    4. Robinson Chirinos

    At the time Lee was a solid defensive short stop, good enough on that side of the ball to be an immediate defensive stud in the majors, but his stick was a question. Lee remains in the minors putting up decent numbers, but is no longer real young for his level and his bat is yet to show it can play in the bigs. At this point he will be a below avg. offensive ss or a very solid defensive utility guy.
    Guyer, was a 24 year old outfielder who had just been named cubs minor league player of the year. He was never seen as a future stud, with the ceiling of a 4th outfielder. That is somewhat where he could end up, though he is yet to stick in the bigs and remains toiling in the minors trying to impress. He is now 26 or 27 and is yet to really break in in any way.
    Robinson Chirinos didn’t last long in the system and is now in the Rangers system. He is a usable piece, but was never thought to be a future piece more than a back up or emergency type guy, and a guy who at the time sat behind a couple of catchers in the cubs system, one of them being Wellington Castillo.
    And then you have the belle of the ball, Chris Archer. Remember the front office, yes even that F.O. didn’t want to give up Archer, and it very nearly nixed the deal for the Cubs. But in the end they did include him to get their guy. Archer was a projected MLB rotation pitcher, probably in the 2/3 range in a high praise scenario. Certainly not an ace type and still isn’t. You also have to remember, he just finished a career year in which he rocked a 15-3 record with a 2.34 era in 28 games, and minor league cubs pitcher of the year. BUT, he was also 22 in that season, not exactly young for either level. And it came on the heels of a lackluster track record as he was the guy who came over for super utility Mark DeRosa in the Cubs/Indians deal a year earlier.
    Fuld, I don’t need to say much, sorta a speed/hustle guy who was never going to be awesome, but could perceivably work his butt off for PT and be an energy off the bench. That is exactly what he was two years ago in Tampa, but now finds himself back in the minors….a Tony Campana comparison isn’t out of order here.
    That was given up for Rosscup, Perez, and Garza. Perez was essentially a long shot, throw in, change of scenery guy that quickly ended his tenure with the cubs so we will leave him off. Let’s look at the other two though.
    Rosscup, at the time was a 22 year old starter, who at low a had a 3 ERA. Rosscup wasn’t highly touted but has always been highly effective! He is now in Iowa and has dominated this year in a relief role and could earn a call up or a bullpen shot starting next spring.
    Garza, what is there to say about Garza? when the Cubs got him he was a 3, with 3 years of control, and peripheral numbers that suggested at least #2 stuff. He did exactly that with the Cubs, dominating at times, struggling some, but overall the best pitcher on the roster during his tenure as far as pure stuff. And he had injuries while with the Cubbies that kept him out of action for nearly a full baseball year. In those three years Garza went 21-18 with a 3.6ish ERA on a real shitty team, and brought enthusiasm and passion every day.
    Now look at what got back in the Garza trade this year. Remember it was a return for not 3 years of Garza, but merely 3 months and coming off a year and half which saw him have arm injuries twice leaving him out for nearly a full season before a month and a half tryout for the trade deadline essentially.
    Mike Olt, a guy who is battling yes, but came into the season as a top 25 prospect in baseball, a power hitting, defensive wiz at 3b. He is in a down year, where his hit tool is severely in question, but with the upside could be a solid everyday 3b still. Questions avail, but less than with anybody they gave up to get garza!
    Neil Ramirez, a peculiar piece of the trade, just completed obviously. Ramirez is somewhat of a conundrum because at age 22 he lit up AA and AAA in the Ranger system, only to see it fall apart last year at both levels. Then this year he reopened in AA and has been effective to the tune of a 3.8 ERA in AA but hasn’t gotten the bump to AAA, in part because of a glut of pitching in texas and a DL stint this summer. Still this guy has what could be a very solid 4 in a major league rotation if he continues to put it together. That being said, the cubs could have possibly elected to take a Hak Ju Lee type in the Rangers ss prospect, but with the glut of infield prospects they opted for a pitching prospect.
    Justin Grimm, another 25 year old starter was a prospect in the Ranger system before forcing his way to the Rangers team, with some aid from injuries on the big league roster. Grimm is in AAA now and is getting mixed results. He has a less than stellar but not awful 4.8 era in the hitter friendly PCL, but notably has seemed to iron out the HR issues which plagued in the big leagues with Texas this season. Grimm is another guy that is more than a serviceable 4/5 candidate next year if he keeps the HR down and just pitches instead of thinking a bit.
    And finally we get to the belle of the ball in this trade. C.J. Edwards. At just 21, a year younger than archer at the time they were each traded. Edwards b/w A and A+ has put up a 1.84 era in 22 starts. He has flat out dominated and should be seen as a prospect as good or better than Archer was. He comes with #2 potential, and with his ability to get a swing and miss, and avoidance of the HR who knows where he could go. But this kid is a legit prospect, probably the best pitching prospect in the last 20 years in the organization not named Wood or Prior. I know that is a very bold statement, but with all outside factors included I like him better than Vizcaino, Johnsen, and anybody else at this point.
    All in all, I would say yes, that is a haul. We got far superior value in this trade compared to what we gave up for Garza in the first place. And we got 3 years not 3 months of Garza. It is not far fetched to see all four of the guys we got in this deal in Chicago in 2-3 years, and that equals haul for any pitcher you only get for 3 months, regardless of name or ability. Remember Garza just came back from fairly serious injury, is gone in a month and a half, and brought back four very capable prospects who could all find themselves in the organizational top 30 at years end. That, my friends, is…… a………HAUL

    • http://vdcinc.biz 70′scub

      Well said Josh! It’s a haul..

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+