Who do we trade and what do we expect in return?

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm in the camp that this is absolute fools gold we are seeing right now from Gregg. Plz sell high.

 

Even if it weren't complete fool's gold, it would make almost no sense to keep him

 

I didn't realize there was an opposing camp.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

It's not snake oil, he's a completely different pitcher who's reinvented himself. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's not snake oil, he's a completely different pitcher who's reinvented himself. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

 

was that not sarcasm? I thought it was quality sarcasm.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

if it was my apologies :-)

[Guest]

Even if it is sarcasm, it's not exactly an opposing viewpoint. Gregg's success thus far has come with a repertoire/stuff change and doesn't appear to be some small sample fluke, that's why teams are interested. With his age and pending free agency though, there's no reason not to trade him.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even if it is sarcasm, it's not exactly an opposing viewpoint. Gregg's success thus far has come with a repertoire/stuff change and doesn't appear to be some small sample fluke, that's why teams are interested. With his age and pending free agency though, there's no reason not to trade him.

 

That sounds exactly like an opposing viewpoint. It's either a mirage or some legitimate change that can last.

[Guest]

Yeah, I guess if he's strictly going from a performance bent, that's true. There's the obvious implication that if you think it's a fluke that they should trade him, what I was trying to mention is that most everyone agrees they should trade him even if it isn't a fluke.

[Guest]

@CarrieMuskat: #Nats, #Dodgers, #Orioles, #BlueJays, #Phillies have scouts at #Cubs game. Matt Garza is starting

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The first of many last starts, no doubt.

[Guest]

The first of many last starts, no doubt.

 

Speaking of which!

 

@georgeofman: If Garza pitches well today, don't be shocked if he's traded over the weekend. Rangers really want him.

[Guest]

Yahoo says Braves want Gregg.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

Is Olt damaged goods, or still an intriguing piece?

[mul21]

Is Olt damaged goods, or still an intriguing piece?

 

I think that's yet to be determined after he got his eyes fixed.

[Guest]

Is Olt damaged goods, or still an intriguing piece?

Damaged

[Guest]

Is Olt damaged goods, or still an intriguing piece?

 

He's 2012 Brett Jackson. All the things you worried about with him got worse at AAA, the performance dipped, age becomes a bigger factor, couldn't make contact to save his life in a brief MLB stint, etc. He won't necessarily turn into 2013 Brett Jackson, but that's where he is now. A .713 OPS and 31% K rate at AAA at age 24 is a lot of red flags. If they still like the potential to fix him he's still an intriguing talent, but I wouldn't have him headline a deadline return(which in turn means he probably wouldn't be dealt here).

[Warpticon]

Is Olt damaged goods, or still an intriguing piece?

 

He's 2012 Brett Jackson. All the things you worried about with him got worse at AAA, the performance dipped, age becomes a bigger factor, couldn't make contact to save his life in a brief MLB stint, etc. He won't necessarily turn into 2013 Brett Jackson, but that's where he is now. A .713 OPS and 31% K rate at AAA at age 24 is a lot of red flags. If they still like the potential to fix him he's still an intriguing talent, but I wouldn't have him headline a deadline return(which in turn means he probably wouldn't be dealt here).

 

I would agree with this if there weren't clear extenuating circumstances AND a clear before/after picture.

 

Before: .139/.235/.236/.471, 11.1% BB, 39.5% K

After: .258/.356/.551/.906, 13.6% BB, 24.3% K

 

Not that a 24% K rate isn't still cause for concern, but it fits his existing profile (24.0 last season). The sample size for each is around 100 PAs, so it's still fairly small, but he's been good for longer than he was bad, and he was bad for a reason. Obviously, when you nearly double your OPS over a similar sample size, the numbers are going to skew toward the worse number. He's the same guy he was a year ago, IMO, unless you think the vision thing is going to come back again somehow. At worst, his April numbers make the best case for an outlier juxtaposed against his past and current production.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Warpticon

[Guest]

We said similar things about Jackson's splits in Iowa last year too, although there wasn't as concrete a reason as vision problems. I think the uncertainty and ceiling is high enough that it means he won't be a Cub, given the potential pieces we have to trade. Hard to see a team wanting him as the one big piece in return unless it was for a player not good enough for Texas to want to part with him.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

Also keep in mind, if we can weaken the Rangers system a bit, we improve our chances beat them out in the Stanton sweepstakes.

[Warpticon]

We said similar things about Jackson's splits in Iowa last year too, although there wasn't as concrete a reason as vision problems. I think the uncertainty and ceiling is high enough that it means he won't be a Cub, given the potential pieces we have to trade. Hard to see a team wanting him as the one big piece in return unless it was for a player not good enough for Texas to want to part with him.

 

We really didn't at all. The argument for Jackson was that he struck out at one pace to a point, then he spiked while at the same level and maintained that spike to present day. With Olt, it's the opposite. He was at one level, turned bad for one month, took a month off to get his eyes treated, and came back doing the same thing he was doing in the first place (which is definitely not what Jackson has done).

[Clem Fandango]

If we can spin Olt's issues to make him an easily acquired secondary piece while acquiring a better prospect than him as the headliner in the same deal , that would be fine by me.

[Vinestal]

Who would we be targeting in a trade with the Rangers? I really don't know their system.

[Clem Fandango]

Who would we be targeting in a trade with the Rangers? I really don't know their system.

 

Off the top of my head I'd imagine the Cubs would be interested in guys like Martin Perez, Justin Grimm, Luke Jackson, etc. Their better pitching prospects, basically. They've got some decent pitching prospects to consider. As much as I like Olt and his upside, he made a lot more sense last year when the Cubs didn't really have a "3B of the future" and Baez was making people think he could move Castro off SS. With Bryant or Baez both likely capable of playing 3B long term, though, and with Vitters at AAA he becomes a little redundant at the moment and will eventually become an odd man out since those coming up behind him are probably a bit more talented.

 

That being said, acquiring him could lead to a future lineup that includes in IF of Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Olt, and an OF of Bryant, Almora, and Soler. It'd be tough finding a better "lineup of the future" in all of baseball in that scenario.

[Guest]

I mentioned it in the game thread, but I really like Martin Perez and Cory Burns.

 

Perez is still very young, and I think the plan for him would be to act as the 6th starter next year from Iowa, stepping in for injury, ineffectiveness, or if he simply forces their hand with dominant performance. The caveat there is that his stuff still plays, he's lost some luster but I don't know how much of it is SNTS or whether his stuff has actually taken a step back.

 

Burns's numbers tell the story pretty clearly, any pitcher who can put up a 5.5 K/BB in their MiLB career is certainly doing well for themselves. He'd be a good bet to join Russell at the back of the pen in pretty short order.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

With Dylan Bundy out with TJS, does the Duke get desperate in Baltimore?

[Irrelevant Dude]

Can someone explain why we should expect a substantially better return for Garza this year than the Cubs got for Dempster in 2012?

 

Obviously there is a big age difference, but that doesn't matter much in the last year of a deal. Garza has the better "stuff", but Dempster was pitching lights out for most of last season and was less of an injury risk. The only other difference I see from the Cubs standpoint is that they have more leverage with regard to making a tender offer to Garza. They had no intention of bringing Dempster back, but Garza could still have value to them beyond this season. That doesn't make him any better of an option to another team though.

 

I'm a little worried that we're going to go through another month of crazy rumors and near-trades (minus the NTC fiasco) and end up with another underwhelming return. Who wants to talk me off the ledge?