Garza Denies Conversation with Cubs about Being Traded

According to a report from Jon Heyman on Sunday afternoon, the Cubs have informed Matt Garza that he’ll likely be traded. The Cubs have decided to trade Garza according to Heyman after talks with Garza did not produce an extension.

Matt Garza denied Heyman’s report after Sunday’s game. Garza said he has not been told by his agent or the Cubs’ front office that he will likely be traded.

Jon Heyman reported Garza continues to draw interest from the Rangers, Indians, Red Sox and Cardinals. But Heyman questioned the reported interest from Toronto for Garza.

Buster Olney reported before and during Sunday’s game that the odds are 80-20 that Garza is traded by Friday. Olney also reported the Rangers as being the frontrunners for Garza with teams in the NL West and Cleveland in the mix as well. Olney reported during Sunday’s game, the Cubs are focused on receiving pitching in return as part of a package for Matt Garza.

Jon Heyman reported the conversations between the Cubs and Matt Garza about a contract extension broke off due to a “difference of opinion over the AAV (average annual value) on the deal.”

According to a report from Patrick Mooney, Garza expects to be traded soon and the Cubs “are hoping to cash in the way the Milwaukee Brewers did by dealing Zack Greinke to the Los Angeles Angels last July.”

Rumors and Notes

According to Ken Rosenthal, the Cubs “aren’t necessarily inclined” to trade David DeJesus. The Cubs have a $6.5 million option on DeJesus for 2014 and the team likes the positive influence that DeJesus provides in the clubhouse. The Cubs are listening on everyone according to Rosenthal and could still trade DeJesus if not by July 31 then in August.

Chris Rusin, Jake Arrieta and Scott Baker are candidates to replace Matt Garza in the rotation if or when he is traded.

According to Buster Olney, the Orioles are out on Matt Garza.

Follow ChicagoCubsOnline on Twitter: @TheCCO and @TheCCO_Minors

Quote of the Day

"Show me a guy who’s afraid to look bad, and I’ll show you a guy you can beat every time." – Lou Brock

Share on Fancred
  • paulcatanese

    No comment on all of these moves, things will get much worse before they get better. What has been a big improvement so far will be lost, and a downward spiral
    will begin. Only eight games under .500 is an improvement over last year, and they could end up at the even mark. That is definitely and improvement considering the games that were blown by the bullpen earlier in the year.

  • Matt Weaver

    At what point do the Cubs start to make a point to keep players and truly make a run at contending? With the current team playing near .500 ball, keeping the current core paid and happy plus making a few stabs in free agency could make this team a winner now and in the future.

    I’m not a believer in just continually waiting around for prospects to emerge as superstars. With the likely failures of Vitters and Jackson and Castro struggling, I think there comes a time where you’ve got what you got and you have to spend a little bit.

    And there is no reason to not spend a little when you have the resources the Cubs do. I’m just running out of patience and feel as though the Cubs are just waiting around for the Stadium improvements and a new TV contract.

    The thoughts of having to wait that long annoy me tremendously…

    • TheWrongGuy

      I understand your point. But the Cubs have for YEARS been doing exactly what your asking ” With the current team playing near .500 ball, keeping the current core paid and happy plus making a few stabs in free agency could make this team a winner now and in the future.” It has NOT worked obviously. So a different approach is being done. The years of lavishly spending in free agency are over for awhile. Jim Hendry tried for years to do exactly what he Theo McHoyer are doing right now. I for one am super happy to see the changes to the Cubs FO the system in which prospects are coached. Everything that was being done before was being done to FAST pace prospects to the majors.

    • K_Gripp

      I think the FO will make an attempt at the playoffs in 2014. I can see them signing a key free agent this off season or possibly turning a few of the prospects that “dont fit” into MLB talent. I may be an overly optimistic Cubs fans but I would be very disappointed if we were sellers again at the 2014 trade deadline.

      • Tony_Hall

        I agree with you, but that doesn’t mean they won’t “sell off” some players next year, even if they are in it. They could be in a position to trade players like Barney, DeJesus, Schierholtz, and have players ready to take their spots by next year at this time.

        I believe the worst is over…that doesn’t mean we won’t have another losing streak again, but we are not going to run out a rotation like we ended up with at the end of last year again.

        • TheWrongGuy

          I agree with you Tony for the most part.
          I don’t believe the worst is over yet… If the FO trades Sori soon then we will hit rock bottom. Just my opinion. But I don’t see a bat to replace him right now on the team or in the close ready minors.
          I hope Barney is around for another 2-3 years. His leadership and defensive play on the infield are very much needed for awhile… again just my opinion.
          If we lose these 2 guys then its very very rock bottom for the CUBS. of course my opinion.

          • Tony_Hall

            Not saying their record won’t be worse in August and September than so far this year. But I don’t see this team getting to 100 losses with the SP depth they have.

            Barney needs to be traded when he gets his value back up, not that any team will trade much for him. Far, far too many 2B option coming up to keep a no bat player like Barney. Alcantara looks like the guy sometime mid to late next year, but Watkins could hold down 2B until then.

            Our best chance to get a real prospect for Soriano is right now. He is hot and showing he can be a productive bat. In the offseason teams will not trade for him, as they will be worried about being another year older and then it will be this time of year again, hoping he gets hot to show he can still hit. As far as who replaces him, we have more than enough OF’s on the roster and the difference in them and Soriano, in terms of WAR is very little when all parts of the game are factored in to play.

            Soriano 1.0
            DeJesus 1.3
            Sweeney 0.8 (in 44 games)
            Schierholtz 1.5

            plus Borbon could use playing time, and now we have Gillespie who could as well to see what we have in both.

          • TheWrongGuy

            I understand this and see your point. But still with the depth in the outfield we have. No Sori means. Rizzo and Castro get no pitches to hit. Not that they are hitting a lot anyways. So the starting pitching. I agree won’t be as bad as last year but if we don’t put any runs on the board we still aren’t going to win as many ball games. And could quite possibly lose many, many more ball games because of this.

          • Tony_Hall

            Remember, outside of Soriano’s hot streaks he is not very productive and produces a negative WAR. A more consistent batter, that has more productive AB’s can be more productive. It is good to have a Soriano type player on your team, just not batting 4th, more like 6th or 7th.

            Soriano’s best year ever he was worth 6 wins. I am sure we all know that was the year before we signed him. In ALL his years with us, he has been worth just over 6 wins.

          • Tony_Hall

            I know that some people have a hard time understanding WAR. Keep in mind a 3 or 4 WAR season is very, very good. Mike Trout had one of the best seasons of all time last year and was around 10 WAR. Miquel Cabrera’s monster season was just over 7 WAR.

            WAR is based on every team winning 48 games with replacement level players. So a 500 team (81 wins) would have a WAR of 33 for ALL 25 players. A 100 win team would have a WAR of 53 for ALL 25 players.

            Here is WAR explained on Baseball Reference


          • cubtex

            Not a believer in WAR one bit. When I see certain players with equal WAR’s who everyone in their right mind knows aren’t equal players it is stupid. Let me show you this example.

            Player 1 .309 Avg .346 OBP 19 HR and 53 RBI and the most telling stat…… .431 avg with RISP. His WAR 2.0

            Player 2 .241 Avg .328 OBP 13 HR and 54 RBI……. His average with RISP .183 avg. His WAR 2.0

            Any guesses on who the players are?

            You might have guessed player 2 is Rizzo because you know that poor RISP.

            Player 1 is Carlos Beltran. So a player with a .431 avg with RISP and one with a .183 avg are equal? No chance.

          • Tony_Hall

            Most people understand that RISP will equal a players average over their career and that any short term differences (like this one) are just that, a short sample size.

            You also are not taking into account all that players do for a team, as the position they play and how well they play defense plays into their WAR….it is not just offense.

          • K_Gripp

            Is there evidence to back up the claim that RISP = BA over a career or is that a theory or assumption? These are people we are dealing with and some people over perform in pressure situations and some people under perform in pressure situations. Im still not 100% sold on WAR. For one thing it varies from website to website and as other people have pointed out you compare player to player and think that there isnt a GM or Manager in the MLB that would agree that this player is similar or better than this player. Im not anti sabermetrics Im just dont put as much stake in WAR as others.

          • Tony_Hall

            Over large numbers, most players will perform the same regardless of the situation. That is why RBI’s are not always the best way to compare players. The batter has no control over how many runners are on base in front of them or at what base. Not sure how a major league player can concentrate more in their AB when they have runners in scoring position versus when they don’t. How did they make it to the majors if they take the other AB’s less seriously? What does that say when they still do? A players ability is a players ability and any variance in it based on the situational stats is an anomaly.

            I will try to post some articles on this as I find them. Most likely Fangraphs has had them in the past. If Dorasaga is reading this, I am sure he will have some that he has read.

            As far as WAR, it is not as simple as AB/H and since it is not simple there are 2 versions that are widely used. Modern STATS are constantly being figured out so that we can view players in different ways. WAR is the best attempt at compiling all aspects of a game into one number to compare players. Comparing players at different positions is not as easy, as defense is a part of the formula and defensive value is going to be different for different positions. Is WAR perfect? NO, but it is a lot better than adding OBP to SLG and comparing players in a way that has no basis, just adding 2 different numbers together. The main difference between Baseball reference and fangraphs is how they value defense.

          • cubtex

            Exactly correct. You take Soriano out of the lineup and you have zero pop. It will put more pressure on the rest of the lineup, not to mention the pitchers because they know they cannot make many mistakes due to lack of run support. This is why computer baseball does not tell the whole story. You have so many more variables. When you have a computer stat determining that Carlos Gomez from the Brewers is the best player in the NL…..that says it all right there.

          • cubtex

            These players both have a 2.0 WAR. One player produces with RISP and one doesn’t. If you had a choice to have either one of these 2 players hit with a runner on 3rd and 2 outs in the 9th down 1 run, who would you rather have up? See? It’s a no brainer. These 2 players aren’t of equal value to their respective teams. Just like if you replace a Soriano with a Valbuena type player. This is where computer baseball gets out of control.

          • Tony_Hall

            You are taking one stat that is unsustainable from a small sample size and making a definitive finding. But if you are talking about batting only, right now, of course you would rather have Beltran than Rizzo. But WAR is not about picking the best player for one situation that you hand pick, it is about showing overall value to a team.

          • daverj

            Why trade Barney when probably the best the Cubs can get is a very low level “prospect” with little upside. I’d rather keep him for now.

          • Tony_Hall

            I said when his value goes back up. It was at its highest last year at this time and may never get back to that level. I also think we would get more than that for him. But unless he is willing to play a utility role and even at that his arbitration number might get too high for that rrole he will have better all around players taking over 2b soon.

          • J Daniel

            He might have to be included in a package to receive the best value back. Not sure how much he is worth by himself. But, he is serviceable. He should be a #8 hitter and a defensive guy.

            Glad to see you are back as you missed the weekend!

          • Tony_Hall

            Long weekend…last summer tournament for my son’s team.

          • J Daniel

            Hope it went well!

          • mutantbeast

            Id say keep Barney for 2-3 as a utility IF. He did start off as a SS, and can play the position at least making the routine plays. Alcantara likely wont be until until 2015.

          • paulcatanese

            Replacing Soriono with the ones that you have named, IMO, Sweeny has looked the best all around outfielder, and Dejesus is by far the best right fielder of the bunch.
            Just getting someone to defend right field will be an upgrade.
            And Barney( who I am a supporter of) really needs as you say upgrade his bat, as good as he is with the glove, he cannot offset that with the lack of hitting.
            Now if he has nights like last night, sure, he will be in the sights of other teams, and I hope that was the start of something, but who knows.

        • K_Gripp

          The interesting thing to see is who the FO really sees as a long term asset and who they view as expendable. This is true from the MLB roster all the way through the system. I think the Cubs are buyers AND sellers if the right trade comes along. I’m with Matt though. I hate having to get excited that we had a really great international signing period. Id much rather be getting excited about the performance of the major league team.

          • Tony_Hall

            I believe we all agree on being more excited about the major league team than the Int’l signing period, but they have built a very strong foundation and are working their way up the building process. AA is getting lots of prospects and soon they will be pushing themselves onto AAA and the major league roster.

          • J Daniel

            Read over the weekend and posted about a comment by Boras. Stated that the Cubs have done this the right way, they have a lot of prospects coming, but will need to start adding a couple of vets to go with. Article was talking about how Elsbury would be a good fit but not sure that TR was going to spend any money.

            I agree to a point in that the need for a couple of vets that have won and know how to take care of business are important leadership pieces. They will, if all goes well, have quite a few arriving at Clark and Addison within a short window.

            Concerned about the statement of TR not spending money. I know they have spent A LOT on drafts and internationals as well as future renovations.

          • K_Gripp

            Id like to see Ellsbury or Choo if the price and years are right I think they pursue one of the two. That gives them a solid lead off guy and then the next thing I think they are missing is a right handed power bat that isnt Soriano. If they can acquire that or a top level pitcher via trade with prospects they arent in love with anyway then you are looking at a pretty competitive team. The thing that keeps bringing me down is that the Reds and Cardinals are not only ahead of the Cubs in the standings but they also are (possibly were depending on new farm rankings) ahead of the Cubs in the farm system. Plus they both have good GM’s. At some point the Cubs will have to flex some financial muscle and make a big signing.

          • daverj

            If Wacha and Carlos Martinez are still considered minor leaguers, then the Cards system is still better than the Cubs. Though the gap is now closer. I think the Cubs’ system is better than the Reds now.

          • DWalker

            I don’t see it either. Teams are going to continue to be really shy about the big FA contracts unless they are in a position where that is goign to be what pushes them over the edge. The FA market just is not set up to reward big FA signings. Not only are you faced with draft pick losses, you also picking a from a much smaller and older pool of FA’s than teams were a few years ago. most of the major deals are now goign to come through trades rather than FA. Its not about being adverse to the FA market, its simply a reaction to the reality of a changed market. What I see more likely to happen, is we see prospects moving out of the system rather than just in, and that will be where we see some blockbuster moves. Maybe next year, more likely 2015. .

      • John_CC

        I agree as well. It isn’t hard to see the Cubs as buyers this time next year. They are stocking piling the farm system not only to produce the “stream of talent” they talk about but also to have a stream of trade-able chips to help land the players they will need to fill the holes that will get a team deep into the playoffs. Not simple make a one game wildcard playoff appearance.

        One or two FA signings this winter and next summer an incoming player or two where needed via trade and I see the Cubs as being competitive again.

  • daverj

    I continue to be surprised that the Pirates are holding on to their many prospects and not making a any noise about a move for Garza and Soriano. From what I’ve read, the Pirate fans don’t want to see their top prospects dealt either. They seem to see the Pirates as a team that will soon be able to compete year in and year out. I see this as a rare chance for the Pirates to capture the division while the Cubs are down and the Reds and Cards are vulnerable. For small market teams, these windows are rare and close quickly.

    • K_Gripp

      Gun shy about the Ramirez trade still? I know I dont like trading within the division.

      • daverj

        I’ve never understood why teams don’t like to trade within their division. If it helps your team, you make the deal. So what if you have to face the guy 20+ times a year. I wouldn’t feel any better about the Lou Brock deal if he had been dealt to the Red Sox instead of the Cardinals.

        • K_Gripp

          There is nothing worse than having a player you traded stick it in your ear several times a year for your fiercest division rival especially if the players you get in return never perform. I wouldn’t mind them trading Garza to the Pirates because the rivalry isnt as strong and he’s not going to return next year but it would make me sick if we traded Garza to the Cardinals and they won the world series with him in the top of their rotation. I hope that the new FO realizes that Cubs Cardinals rivalry is a big deal and they shouldnt be trade partners with them much like the Yankees and Sox dont make trades with each other. Call me old school but I prefer my Cubs to be Cubs and my Cardinals to be Cardinals. I never could bring myself to root for Jim Edmunds. Not even once.

    • BosephHeyden

      I get why the Pirates aren’t making a move. If they trade away prospects, it’s 90% likely they’re getting a rental. More than that, they’re getting a rental that they won’t be able to afford come next year. Them hanging onto their prospects until attendance is steady enough to get more of a payroll available is smart. They’ve traded away plenty of good players for potentially great players that getting a one year rental hurts more than it helps, unless that rental wins them a title this year.