Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Backtobanks]

I don't agree with all of the posters who say that Maholm and DeJesus are easily replaced during the offseason. The expectation level of both signings wasn't super-high, but I'm not sure you would be able to replace their production for what we paid them. A random cheap OF and BOR starter don't describe the contributions they've made this year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

In all honesty, I don't really think the 2013 Cubs are any worse than they were last week, unless Vizcaino's rehab is months different than what I'm expecting as the normal TJS recovery.

 

Which is why I said earlier that the really it's more about the intention to trade Soriano and Garza. If/when those two are traded, I think that'll signal the end of 2013's hope.

Wait, I thought Dave Sappelt could replace Soriano's production.

 

I thought he could. We were both equally wrong, I guess.

[dew1679666265]

I understand the idea of setting expectations lower on Garza now, since he's being dealt in the offseason. But ... as one of the better arms likely to be moved, I really hope we get a bit more upside than Hutchison or Nicolino, even if that means gambling on some high upside low level kid that's 3-4 years away. That'd be a very disappointing package.

 

I'm not saying the talent should be better, but I'd rather gamble on a different type of arm than Nicolino, if at all possible, to get some upside in that package. Hutchison looks like a good number 3, solid end of the rotation type. Nicolino's more a back end of the rotation type guy.

 

If both are back-end type guys, I'd hate that deal for Garza. That wouldn't even get us a guy who has the upside of Garza right now, much less better. We absolutely need more upside than that to warrant dealing him.

 

The weak FA market means if they want to make multiple key moves to get some non-short term assets for the clubs (that is, guys you think could be core pieces in , some of it would have to come through the trade market. Leaving the pen aside for a moment, I'm not sure we have the ability to really address our needs through the trade market. I doubt we could land a TOR type arm in the trade market, as I don't see them giving up a prime piece like Baez. 3rd base? If Vitters isn't the answer, our chances of landing a significant upgrade, say, a Headley type, seem debatable. Headley's price may come down a bit (and I am a fan of Headley), but it was exorbitant this deadline, so it's hard to imagine it coming down dramatically. It's just hard to imagine giving up a prime piece. I can't think of who else that might be available at 3rd, tbh.

 

Right now, no we don't have quite the flexibility we need to make those kinds of moves. But we have a high draft pick and a large draft/IFA budget for next year and probably will have a fairly high pick and good draft budget again after next year (assuming improvement but not serious playoff contention). Basically, we won't be picking in the 20s within the next couple of years. By the end of 2013 we may have that flexibility and we certainly should by the end of 2014. If our major league roster is all but barren at that point (because we've been plugging holes with buy low guys and AAAA scrubs) save for Castro/Rizzo/maybe BJax and Vitters, then we'll really have our work cut out for us to contend by 2014-2015. But if we've added a few pieces along the way, then we'll have the core (the farm products previously mentioned) and most of the supporting cast (the few FAs) already in place and all we need to do is swing one big deal instead of hoping everything we need is there in one offseason.

 

a) I'm not all that keen on BJ Upton because of Brett Jackson. This isn't a pro-Brett comment, but more a negative opinion on BJ.[/qutoe]

 

Upton's a guy capable of posting 4+ WAR seasons (has done it 4 of past 6 seasons), plays terrific defense, and has solid patience. I'm always keen on adding players like that. Plus, he'll be 28 most of next year - meaning if we sign him to a 5 year deal this offseason, we'd have him through his age 32 season. I know the trend is leaning toward guys past 30 being washed up, but I really don't see him falling off that much by 32. Upton is everything we could hope for in a non-elite FA.

 

b) dew, the issue isn't "waiting until we are WS capable to add pieces". At least, it's not for me. This isn't coming out as clear as I want it to, but it's the best I can do for now in the limited time. Clearly, you can't wait until then to build a core. The question is, are the pieces to add guys that can be key pieces of a core without their contracts being a concern when you can compete. You don't want to add a guy this year, on say, a 5 year deal, when the chances to compete for the playoffs in 2013 are slim, unless said player can be a meaningful part of a core in say, 2015. You don't want to take away the flexibility down the line, when that flexibility could be significant. I would have significant worries about guys like Upton/Sanchez (Upton moreso than Sanchez). If you could get them on shorter deals, then by all means, let's do it if we can and Ricketts allows.

 

Like I just said, Upton will be 28 until August of next year. By 2015 he'll be in his age 30 season, turning 31 in August. He's posted 4-5 WAR in 4 of the past 6 seasons. Is he really going to be washed up by 2015? Anibal will be 31 in 2015, so he might be beginning to hit his decline but should still be pitching very well. If you wanted to pass on him in favor of a Liriano/E Jackson type, I'd fully understand.

 

Again, I'm not saying we must sign specifically BJ Upton and Anibal Sanchez or we'll have a miserable offseason. I'm simply saying we should take seriously the parallel fronts comments that Hoyer made last year and make some effort to start preparing for being good and stop intentionally tanking seasons. Trying to do everything in one offseason or relying on the farm to supply every bit of the talent on the major league roster (be it with players actually on the roster or by trading minor leaguers for players) is a recipe for failure.

[dew1679666265]

I don't agree with all of the posters who say that Maholm and DeJesus are easily replaced during the offseason. The expectation level of both signings wasn't super-high, but I'm not sure you would be able to replace their production for what we paid them. A random cheap OF and BOR starter don't describe the contributions they've made this year.

 

The expected production of Maholm in 2013 should be pretty easy to replace. Maholm's had a huge first half, but I strongly expect him to decline sharply in the second half and if not in the second half, certainly in 2013. He's been pretty pedestrian his entire career and I'm not adjusting my expectations for him after one really good half season.

 

DeJesus would be tougher to replace, but I don't expect him to be dealt unless we get somebody like Upton and can't move Soriano.

[davell]

Dew Toonster hit the prospects I mentioned on the head basically, although I think of Nicolino as having more of a 3 ceiling. Hutchison is definitely a 3 type guy. I think where we're off here though is basically the terminology of 1,2,3,4, and 5's. A 3, by scouting standards is a very, very solid guy. There probably aren't but 10 "1's" in baseball and I doubt there's more than 15ish 2's. By no means am I saying Garza isn't a top 30ish type SP in baseball, he is. A 1 has two plus pitches, an average pitch and plus command, a 2 has the same but without plus command. A 3 has one plus pitch and 2 average pitches, a 4 has no plus pitch but avrage on 3 pitches and a 5 is basically the same, except maybe less command than a 4. Or something close to that, I can't find it right now and I don't have access to my BA Handbook at the moment.

 

FWIW, a guy like Syndergaard has a much higher ceiling than Nicolino. Getting him and Hutchison would be excellent for me. I'm not particularly advocating any type of package per se' though, just a general value. My guess is we're looking at getting a guy who's maybe lost his prospect status but is still certainly making league minimum, that was once a top 50ish type prospect and has had some semblance of success, although not too much. Like a Delgado type or Hutchison, at the major league level. Then a guy who's probably a borderline top 100ish guy, that may or may not have a humongous upside. My guess is most GM's prefer nopt to trade those guys, in case they actually do hit and make them look like an idiot.

 

And yes, we've had a few high picks in a row, but the only true impact talent we currently have are Baez, Soler, and Almora. It's possible a guy like Candelario, or Maples, or Johnson, or one of the other arms drafted this year can turn into that, but we're not flush with elite talent yet. And I do stand behind us having the best positional prospects in the minors. But, we need more of everything to do what I think we want to be able to do with these guys. Another season of adding to this group becomes much more valuable to me, than increasing our win total by 15 games from whatever we end up at this year. I'm just a year behind you though, if any of the 2015 talk is real, I think that is going overboard. But letting things unfold this way and doing it with youngsters playing next season and seeing who sticks gives us many more opportunities and lfexibility moving forward than spending ona few guys that aren't difference makers and could possibly hinder you from getting difference makers later on.

[sneakypower]

I don't agree with all of the posters who say that Maholm and DeJesus are easily replaced during the offseason. The expectation level of both signings wasn't super-high, but I'm not sure you would be able to replace their production for what we paid them. A random cheap OF and BOR starter don't describe the contributions they've made this year.

Brett Jackson or Angel Pagan and Joe Blanton, or Liriano, or Santana, or Saunders

 

it shouldn't be terribly difficult

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't agree with all of the posters who say that Maholm and DeJesus are easily replaced during the offseason. The expectation level of both signings wasn't super-high, but I'm not sure you would be able to replace their production for what we paid them. A random cheap OF and BOR starter don't describe the contributions they've made this year.

Brett Jackson or Angel Pagan and Joe Blanton, or Liriano, or Santana, or Saunders

 

it shouldn't be terribly difficult

 

Yeah, I don't think Brett Jackson can replace DeJesus. He *might* be able to replace what Marlon Byrd and Tony Campana gave us this season.

[dew1679666265]

Dew Toonster hit the prospects I mentioned on the head basically, although I think of Nicolino as having more of a 3 ceiling. Hutchison is definitely a 3 type guy. I think where we're off here though is basically the terminology of 1,2,3,4, and 5's. A 3, by scouting standards is a very, very solid guy. There probably aren't but 10 "1's" in baseball and I doubt there's more than 15ish 2's. By no means am I saying Garza isn't a top 30ish type SP in baseball, he is. A 1 has two plus pitches, an average pitch and plus command, a 2 has the same but without plus command. A 3 has one plus pitch and 2 average pitches, a 4 has no plus pitch but avrage on 3 pitches and a 5 is basically the same, except maybe less command than a 4. Or something close to that, I can't find it right now and I don't have access to my BA Handbook at the moment.

 

That's interesting, thanks. I am confused, though, because you referred to Garza as a 3 before, but now say he's definitely a top 30 guy (which would make him a 2 according to this). That may be nitpicking, but Garza's always been a guy with top end stuff who just hasn't put it together completely on the mound (the numbers didn't match the stuff, basically). I have trouble believing he's no more than a mid-rotation guy when looking only at his stuff.

 

FWIW, a guy like Syndergaard has a much higher ceiling than Nicolino. Getting him and Hutchison would be excellent for me. I'm not particularly advocating any type of package per se' though, just a general value. My guess is we're looking at getting a guy who's maybe lost his prospect status but is still certainly making league minimum, that was once a top 50ish type prospect and has had some semblance of success, although not too much. Like a Delgado type or Hutchison, at the major league level. Then a guy who's probably a borderline top 100ish guy, that may or may not have a humongous upside. My guess is most GM's prefer nopt to trade those guys, in case they actually do hit and make them look like an idiot.

 

I just don't like giving up a clear TOR pitcher like Garza for guys who might slot in around the middle or bottom of our rotation long term. It doesn't really benefit us much. If we're going to trade Garza, I think we have to get at the very least one high upside, major league ready arm and another high upside, lower level arm.

 

And yes, we've had a few high picks in a row, but the only true impact talent we currently have are Baez, Soler, and Almora. It's possible a guy like Candelario, or Maples, or Johnson, or one of the other arms drafted this year can turn into that, but we're not flush with elite talent yet. And I do stand behind us having the best positional prospects in the minors. But, we need more of everything to do what I think we want to be able to do with these guys. Another season of adding to this group becomes much more valuable to me, than increasing our win total by 15 games from whatever we end up at this year. I'm just a year behind you though, if any of the 2015 talk is real, I think that is going overboard. But letting things unfold this way and doing it with youngsters playing next season and seeing who sticks gives us many more opportunities and lfexibility moving forward than spending ona few guys that aren't difference makers and could possibly hinder you from getting difference makers later on.

 

We will have next year's draft where we have a top 1-3 pick and a large draft/IFA budget. That should be 1-2 more (at least) elite level players and very possibly more with the Theo regime running things.

 

And again, I'm not saying we must contend by 2013, I'm simply arguing that adding guys who can help long term like a BJ Upton can be very beneficial and take some of the pressure off of us in the offseason prior to us seriously contending. With a few breaks it might also allow us to get into the crapshoot that is the playoffs and pull off a Cardinals-esque fluke. The ultimate goal should be dominance year in and year out, but I don't believe at all that we have to tank multiple seasons to be able to do that.

[davell]

I was careful in what I mentioned, by saying Garza definirelt a top 30 guy, I can call him a top end 3, since I said 25 total of 1 and 2s, hehe. It is semantics obviously. Numbers-wise, I see Hutchison putting up mid 3ish ERA's in the NL, but he doesn't have anything extraordinary going for him. To me though, he's got a high floor. A capable replacement for Garza, especially once the money differential is accounted for. I'd love to get a HUGE upside type with a guy like Hutchison, but honestly, there's just not THAT many of those guys around. Maybe a Syndergaard is possible, not thinking of other options honestly right now. I'm fishing, when O get off the boat, I'll look through some possibilities and give any packages I could see as plausible.

[davell]

By the way, another reason, although it's extremely early to be thinking anout it, is the 2013 draft class is not considered any stronger than this past one, maybe even weaker. Things can change there though, but it's not looking like we'll get a game changing talent, and that's safe to say. On the other hand, the 2014 class has 2 of those type guys. Again, super long way out, too many things can and very easily could go wrong, but Carlos Rodon and Drew Ward are both considered right now anyway, to be better than anything on the plate for next year.

[toonsterwu]

dew, it seems highly doubtful that we can get a high upside major league ready arm and a high upside low level arm (assuming by high upside, you mean better than mid-rotation ceilings). That's just a gigantic package, and while it's not impossible, few teams give up that type of package in a deal (and most systems don't really have 1 of each ... a couple systems come to mind as possibilities). It's the type of monster package that I just don't see a team giving up for Garza, without long term control. The closest thing I can think of would be the package the Nationals gave up for Gio Gonzalez this winter (AJ Cole, who has struggled, was viewed as a high upside low level arm ... Peacock was a more debated talent, but some viewed him as a high upside upper level arm), and the Nats got multi-year control of a SP in his prime.

 

If we can get one high upside arm in a Garza deal, close or far away, I think it'll be fine if the other piece is a solid asset like a Hutchison.

[dew1679666265]

I was careful in what I mentioned, by saying Garza definirelt a top 30 guy, I can call him a top end 3, since I said 25 total of 1 and 2s, hehe. It is semantics obviously. Numbers-wise, I see Hutchison putting up mid 3ish ERA's in the NL, but he doesn't have anything extraordinary going for him. To me though, he's got a high floor. A capable replacement for Garza, especially once the money differential is accounted for. I'd love to get a HUGE upside type with a guy like Hutchison, but honestly, there's just not THAT many of those guys around. Maybe a Syndergaard is possible, not thinking of other options honestly right now. I'm fishing, when O get off the boat, I'll look through some possibilities and give any packages I could see as plausible.

 

Haha, good point on the numbers. Clearly I don't know which of 25 and 30 comes first.

 

Anyway, everything I've read and seen on Garza tells me he's got top end stuff. I was very wary of Garza at the time we acquired him because he hadn't put up the numbers to justify the package, I felt. Now, however, he's posted an elite type season and one that's not terribly far behind (if he can just play some semblance of defense and keep the ball in the park). The numbers are catching up to the stuff and I have real issues calling him a #3 type starter and looking for that type of return for him.

[dew1679666265]

By the way, another reason, although it's extremely early to be thinking anout it, is the 2013 draft class is not considered any stronger than this past one, maybe even weaker. Things can change there though, but it's not looking like we'll get a game changing talent, and that's safe to say. On the other hand, the 2014 class has 2 of those type guys. Again, super long way out, too many things can and very easily could go wrong, but Carlos Rodon and Drew Ward are both considered right now anyway, to be better than anything on the plate for next year.

 

That means keep the talent on the major league roster awful enough to achieve, at a bare minimum, a top 5 pick - if not a top 2 pick. So let's say we really tank next year and finish with the #3 pick. I realize Rodon or Ward could fall outside the top two (pretty unlikely I'd guess, but possible), but what happens if we add a few pieces next offseason and then miss on both players? Do we trade off the pieces we added and intentionally tank another season? Because we still don't have that game changing talent you're arguing we need to be able to compete. Or do we just move on and accept that we tanked a season and only got a marginal benefit out of it?

 

Let me put it this way: We can always make the farm system better and insisting on making it as good as possible before competing at the major league level is a never ending process. Each year we can tank the season and make the farm system that much better, does that mean we should do it each year? A #1 farm system can be built while we win games at the major league level, it should not be a one or the other type of thing. We have a good base of high upside prospects right now and we have a chance to add more next year and then even if we make some effort at the major league level, we're probably still looking at a top 10-15ish pick in the following draft. We're in a good position now to start adding some to the major league roster and increase our chances of contending sooner while not hurting the farm and, in fact, continuing to build it.

[dew1679666265]

dew, it seems highly doubtful that we can get a high upside major league ready arm and a high upside low level arm (assuming by high upside, you mean better than mid-rotation ceilings). That's just a gigantic package, and while it's not impossible, few teams give up that type of package in a deal (and most systems don't really have 1 of each ... a couple systems come to mind as possibilities). It's the type of monster package that I just don't see a team giving up for Garza, without long term control. The closest thing I can think of would be the package the Nationals gave up for Gio Gonzalez this winter (AJ Cole, who has struggled, was viewed as a high upside low level arm ... Peacock was a more debated talent, but some viewed him as a high upside upper level arm), and the Nats got multi-year control of a SP in his prime.

 

If we can get one high upside arm in a Garza deal, close or far away, I think it'll be fine if the other piece is a solid asset like a Hutchison.

 

I could probably be swayed on the secondary piece, but I think it's a must to get a high upside, major league ready (or near ready) arm as the headliner for Garza. As a major market team with ample resources, I don't believe we should trade away a proven TOR pitcher who's still moderately young for uncertainty. There's too much risk that the young pitcher doesn't develop, even with the excellent talent evaluators we have.

 

I realize that's a very unlikely package to get, but that's ok. We don't need to trade Garza, so we shouldn't accept a lesser package just to move him.

[toonsterwu]

dew, it seems highly doubtful that we can get a high upside major league ready arm and a high upside low level arm (assuming by high upside, you mean better than mid-rotation ceilings). That's just a gigantic package, and while it's not impossible, few teams give up that type of package in a deal (and most systems don't really have 1 of each ... a couple systems come to mind as possibilities). It's the type of monster package that I just don't see a team giving up for Garza, without long term control. The closest thing I can think of would be the package the Nationals gave up for Gio Gonzalez this winter (AJ Cole, who has struggled, was viewed as a high upside low level arm ... Peacock was a more debated talent, but some viewed him as a high upside upper level arm), and the Nats got multi-year control of a SP in his prime.

 

If we can get one high upside arm in a Garza deal, close or far away, I think it'll be fine if the other piece is a solid asset like a Hutchison.

 

I could probably be swayed on the secondary piece, but I think it's a must to get a high upside, major league ready (or near ready) arm as the headliner for Garza. As a major market team with ample resources, I don't believe we should trade away a proven TOR pitcher who's still moderately young for uncertainty. There's too much risk that the young pitcher doesn't develop, even with the excellent talent evaluators we have.

 

I realize that's a very unlikely package to get, but that's ok. We don't need to trade Garza, so we shouldn't accept a lesser package just to move him.

 

If the Cubs could reach an agreement with Garza, I think they would very much contemplate keeping him, but for all the talk about Garza's ability and restocking the farm, at the end of the day, if Garza doesn't show a willingness to sign for what Theo and Jed think is appropriate, then I think they will move him in the off-season to avoid wasting a potential resource, even if that means getting a less than awesome package.

[Little Slide Rooter]

As I've said before, the 2013 FA pitching market once potentially featured Cain, Hamels, and Greinke. Cain and Hamels are off. Greinke could very well resign with the Angels, especially looking at how much they gave up for him. Sanchez could easily as well. Marcum, McCarthy, and Jackson are now the likely headliners.While a lot of teams would like any of them, they'll now become very expensive. And cost a draft pick if offered arbitration. Peavy, Haren, Shields, Westbrook, and Santana each have team or mutual options. The only one of those options I could see blought out is Peavy's for 22MM. The others could be picked up and traded though.

 

This could make Garza very valuable in the offseason. Possibly more than he would have been at the deadline. Of course you never know who could pop up on the block in the winter.

 

Then there's the question of our 2013 rotation. As of now, it would probably look something like Garza/Shark/Wood/Raley/Germano/Volstad/Rusin/Struck/Coleman. There's Vizcaino, but a lot of the experts think that he'll be a reliever, at least for now. If we do trade Garza in the winter, we better acquire something big league ready. Take Garza out of that equation, and the result could be a historically bad rotation.

[davell]

Dew, a few trades I'd be OK with for Garza over the offseason: Hutchison and Syndergaard, Doubront and Barnes(iffy), Odorizzi and Ventura(my favorite), Delgado and Gilmartin(doubt Atlanta's looking), Corcino and Cingrani, Perwz and Buckel, Corbin and Bradley(another favorite).

[El Duderino]

Dew, a few trades I'd be OK with for Garza over the offseason: Hutchison and Syndergaard, Doubront and Barnes(iffy), Odorizzi and Ventura(my favorite), Delgado and Gilmartin(doubt Atlanta's looking), Corcino and Cingrani, Perwz and Buckel, Corbin and Bradley(another favorite).

 

Barnes and Owens from Boston. Or one of the two and Jackie Bradley. Nomnom

 

I really want Boston to trade for him.

[toonsterwu]

Dew, a few trades I'd be OK with for Garza over the offseason: Hutchison and Syndergaard, Doubront and Barnes(iffy), Odorizzi and Ventura(my favorite), Delgado and Gilmartin(doubt Atlanta's looking), Corcino and Cingrani, Perwz and Buckel, Corbin and Bradley(another favorite).

 

You'd only be "OK" with Corbin/Bradley? I'd jump for joy if that happened.

 

One possible team you leave out are the Dodgers. I could see them pursue a big time starter. The new ownership seems to want to play big. Maybe not Zach Lee, but I could see Webster and another arm as a possible offering, and that would fit in line, value-wise, with some of the offers you have.

[toonsterwu]

Dew, a few trades I'd be OK with for Garza over the offseason: Hutchison and Syndergaard, Doubront and Barnes(iffy), Odorizzi and Ventura(my favorite), Delgado and Gilmartin(doubt Atlanta's looking), Corcino and Cingrani, Perwz and Buckel, Corbin and Bradley(another favorite).

 

Barnes and Owens from Boston. Or one of the two and Jackie Bradley. Nomnom

 

I really want Boston to trade for him.

 

My hunch is that Boston is going to decide to go with a youth movement and will be hoping that, in a few years, JB Jr. is in CF, Middlebrooks is at 3rd, and Bogaerts is in a corner OF role. I think you could see them trade guys like Ellsbury this offseason to try and find long term holes to fit with those pieces.

 

Barnes ... I'm not huge on, but he might be a tough get as their only close to ready (within 2 years would be the hope) quality arm.

[El Duderino]

I don't like the Dodgers unless they give up Lee and Webster. Not huge on their 2nd-tier guys.

[davell]

Dew, a few trades I'd be OK with for Garza over the offseason: Hutchison and Syndergaard, Doubront and Barnes(iffy), Odorizzi and Ventura(my favorite), Delgado and Gilmartin(doubt Atlanta's looking), Corcino and Cingrani, Perwz and Buckel, Corbin and Bradley(another favorite).

 

You'd only be "OK" with Corbin/Bradley? I'd jump for joy if that happened.

 

One possible team you leave out are the Dodgers. I could see them pursue a big time starter. The new ownership seems to want to play big. Maybe not Zach Lee, but I could see Webster and another arm as a possible offering, and that would fit in line, value-wise, with some of the offers you have.

oK was slang, in a way. My two favorites were trades I don't really see getting that much for him.

[Guest]

How much time will Theo even spend on the phone with the Dodgers at this point? They were clearly lowballing him with Dempster and probably wasted a significant amount of Theo's time in doing so.

 

At this point, they would have to come in with an extremely competitive offer to start before I'd even consider listening to anything they have to say. Even seemed like LA thought the other rumors were just a bluff and that they were standing firm on a weak offer, and Theo stood firm and traded Dempster somewhere else.

[jersey cubs fan]

How much time will Theo even spend on the phone with the Dodgers at this point? They were clearly lowballing him with Dempster and probably wasted a significant amount of Theo's time in doing so.

 

At this point, they would have to come in with an extremely competitive offer to start before I'd even consider listening to anything they have to say. Even seemed like LA thought the other rumors were just a bluff and that they were standing firm on a weak offer, and Theo stood firm and traded Dempster somewhere else.

 

LA seems to be the NL team willing to spend the most, so he should be on the phone with them often to try and clog their payroll and take advantage of them.

[CubColtPacer]

How much time will Theo even spend on the phone with the Dodgers at this point? They were clearly lowballing him with Dempster and probably wasted a significant amount of Theo's time in doing so.

 

At this point, they would have to come in with an extremely competitive offer to start before I'd even consider listening to anything they have to say. Even seemed like LA thought the other rumors were just a bluff and that they were standing firm on a weak offer, and Theo stood firm and traded Dempster somewhere else.

 

I don't see the blame for the Dodgers. They just didn't value Dempster as much as other clubs did, and they never backed off of that. It was only the issues on the Cubs end that caused them to have to negotiate so much with the Dodgers in the first place.