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

[ctcf]

Is it time for a Garza trade thread?

 

It'd probably just be easier to change the title of this one.

[ctcf]

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

Unless there is a dramatic change, the Orioles are out of the Garza trade talks. Too much cost in prospects and money to them.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

Unless there is a dramatic change, the Orioles are out of the Garza trade talks. Too much cost in prospects and money to them.

 

Money should not be an issue on our end. It should be all about the player return. I could definitely see Theo asking for Bundy, using the TJS as a platform and getting an immediate dial tone.

[ctcf]

There's been talk that the Cubs might be looking for someone to pay some or all of Garza's contract, although I'll believe this next bit when I see it:

 

Alarmingly, Rosenthal suggested that the Cubs are now willing to accept a lesser prospect package if their trading partner takes on more of the $4.5ish million salary Garza is owed for the rest of the year.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/07/13/obsessive-matt-garza-trade-watch-a-deal-is-reportedly-likely-over-the-all-star-break/

[davell]

If anything, my guess are the teams that truly are in on Garza all prefer to pay the money, in order to lessen the prospect return and we have to relent from that aspect.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's been talk that the Cubs might be looking for someone to pay some or all of Garza's contract, although I'll believe this next bit when I see it:

 

Alarmingly, Rosenthal suggested that the Cubs are now willing to accept a lesser prospect package if their trading partner takes on more of the $4.5ish million salary Garza is owed for the rest of the year.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/07/13/obsessive-matt-garza-trade-watch-a-deal-is-reportedly-likely-over-the-all-star-break/

 

GIVE ME THE FOREHEAD HEROIN.

[mookie]

Well, that blows.

[Guest]

Again, I really don't get what Rosenthal is coming from. He hedged that statement with "seemingly", the rest of the media is indicating the opposite, the front office has directly stated the opposite, and the other high dollar trade candidate they have they're reportedly willing to eat more money to get a better return(according to Rosenthal himself!). It doesn't make any sense and I don't believe him.

[davell]

I'll put the over/under on our return at a top 100ish type prospect(or was and is in beginning stages of majors), a top 10ish org guy in average system, and a top 20ish type as well.

[ctcf]

Yea, I'm not buying the Rosenthal bit until I see it.

[ScrubMD]

The only way I see that being true is if they think they just won't be able to get the package they want.

[Guest]

kind of annoyed that brett would even post that. is he trying to get clicks, or does he really think that could be true? there's no way that's true.

[davell]

Texas seems like the favorite to me. Here's my guess, if its them: Olt, Luke Jackson, and Neil Ramirez. And no, I don't suspect the board would like it. I would LOVE to pry CJ Edwards away, but an Olt/Edwards package seems a bit much, in my opinion. Even if we look at Olt as 2012 Brett part deux.

[A New Era]

I really don't want another Brett Jackson.

[ctcf]

kind of annoyed that brett would even post that. is he trying to get clicks, or does he really think that could be true? there's no way that's true.

 

He posted it in the context of a larger piece and did so to address comments by one of the, if not the, most visible baseball writer in America. Why are you annoyed exactly?

[ctcf]

Also, I want no part of Olt.

[TruffleShuffle]

i almost don't see the pont of texas trying to trade olt. his stock would have dropped so sharply that he's probably worth more to them in the hope that he recovers and plays well than he is in a trade. certainly nobody's going to treat him as more than a secondary piece of a trade.

[abohnhoff]

I'll put the over/under on our return at a top 100ish type prospect(or was and is in beginning stages of majors), a top 10ish org guy in average system, and a top 20ish type as well.

 

Lets say the Cubs were acquring a guy like Garza and trading the proespects you mentioned...give me a scenario of what that trade would look like...

 

Alcantara, Szczur, and Hendricks?

Pierce, Villanueva, Al Cabrera?

[abohnhoff]

kind of annoyed that brett would even post that. is he trying to get clicks, or does he really think that could be true? there's no way that's true.

 

He posted it in the context of a larger piece and did so to address comments by one of the, if not the, most visible baseball writer in America. Why are you annoyed exactly?

 

If you havent noticed yet, Brett has a new post for every new piece of information that is Cubs related. He had to have over 100 posts on the Wrigley Field renovation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't see what's so impossible about us looking to save cash in a Garza deal. Teams say one thing to the press and another to other teams in trade talks all the time, and we've saved money in a couple of trades already (and thus implicitly accepted a lesser return).

[pitchcs]

I don't see what's so impossible about us looking to save cash in a Garza deal. Teams say one thing to the press and another to other teams in trade talks all the time, and we've saved money in a couple of trades already (and thus implicitly accepted a lesser return).

 

Because it's just not what the organization is looking to do at this time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't see what's so impossible about us looking to save cash in a Garza deal. Teams say one thing to the press and another to other teams in trade talks all the time, and we've saved money in a couple of trades already (and thus implicitly accepted a lesser return).

 

Because it's just not what the organization is looking to do at this time.

 

That's not a reason, that's a tautology.

[Little Slide Rooter]

There's been talk that the Cubs might be looking for someone to pay some or all of Garza's contract, although I'll believe this next bit when I see it:

 

Alarmingly, Rosenthal suggested that the Cubs are now willing to accept a lesser prospect package if their trading partner takes on more of the $4.5ish million salary Garza is owed for the rest of the year.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/07/13/obsessive-matt-garza-trade-watch-a-deal-is-reportedly-likely-over-the-all-star-break/

 

GIVE ME THE FOREHEAD HEROIN.

 

I'd prefer the draft pick.

[Little Slide Rooter]

kind of annoyed that brett would even post that. is he trying to get clicks, or does he really think that could be true? there's no way that's true.

 

He posted it in the context of a larger piece and did so to address comments by one of the, if not the, most visible baseball writer in America. Why are you annoyed exactly?

 

If you havent noticed yet, Brett has a new post for every new piece of information that is Cubs related. He had to have over 100 posts on the Wrigley Field renovation.

 

It's almost as though he's a member of the social media a rapidly growing Cubs blog.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's been talk that the Cubs might be looking for someone to pay some or all of Garza's contract, although I'll believe this next bit when I see it:

 

Alarmingly, Rosenthal suggested that the Cubs are now willing to accept a lesser prospect package if their trading partner takes on more of the $4.5ish million salary Garza is owed for the rest of the year.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/07/13/obsessive-matt-garza-trade-watch-a-deal-is-reportedly-likely-over-the-all-star-break/

 

GIVE ME THE FOREHEAD HEROIN.

 

I'd prefer the draft pick.