Garza Sent Home After Side Session

**DewsSox79** · 08-05-2012, 08:24 PM

Per sullivan as he states a DL stint likely

**DewsSox79** · 08-05-2012, 08:26 PM

CSN Chicago‏@CSNChicago

RT @CSNMooney: Garza sent back to Chicago to get stiff elbow evaluated again, will be placed on DL.

**waldo7239117** · 08-05-2012, 09:00 PM

I expect Rusin to be pitch on Tuesday. He'll have to be added to the 40-man roster, but there's a spot open. The other option was Coleman, but he pitched today. Maybe not since he pitched yesterday.

If it isn't Rusin, maybe Brooks Raley. His next scheduled for Iowa is Tuesday I belived, so it would be on normal rest.

**DewsSox79** · 08-05-2012, 10:11 PM

you have to hope this doesnt turn out to be a jon danks situation and he needs surgery or is out for a prolonged period of time as it will be a shitty haul if he gets dealt in the offseason.

**DewsSox79** · 08-06-2012, 07:11 PM

stress reaction in elbow. may not pitch rest of season. per twitter writers

Sent from my USCfans guide to being an uneducated baseball fan using Tapatalk

**X-Factor** · 08-06-2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by DewsSox79

you have to hope this doesnt turn out to be a jon danks situation and he needs surgery or is out for a prolonged period of time as it will be a shitty haul if he gets dealt in the offseason.

I don't think the haul was ever going to be as good as Theo & Co wanted it to be anyway. He's been very avg. this year, imo. His "value" was highest right before he got injured, as far as team-control and what not goes.

**2SeamHeat** · 08-06-2012, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by X-Factor

I don't think the haul was ever going to be as good as Theo & Co wanted it to be anyway. He's been very avg. this year, imo. His "value" was highest right before he got injured, as far as team-control and what not goes.

At this point, I think the FO goes into winter looking to extend him. The injury is going to make him virtually untradeable, at least not for a haul that's worthy of him. They should have traded him at the AS break, and probably earlier. Still makes no sense to me that they pushed so hard to trade Dempster before focusing on Garza. Garza was your most valuable trade peice. Move him first, then create a higher value for Dempster.

**X-Factor** · 08-06-2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by 2SeamHeat

At this point, I think the FO goes into winter looking to extend him. The injury is going to make him virtually untradeable, at least not for a haul that's worthy of him. They should have traded him at the AS break, and probably earlier. Still makes no sense to me that they pushed so hard to trade Dempster before focusing on Garza. Garza was your most valuable trade peice. Move him first, then create a higher value for Dempster.

Well, i kinda disagree...I mean, yeah, Garza should bring a bigger haul, but Demp's trade value was never higher at any point in his career than it was when we traded him...and if we didn't trade Demp during this trade deadline, we probably were going to have to let him walk after the season and take the comp pick...We still have time to trade Garza. they maximized potential returns, imo...just an unfortunate injury.

**DewsSox79** · 08-06-2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by X-Factor

I don't think the haul was ever going to be as good as Theo & Co wanted it to be anyway. He's been very avg. this year, imo. His "value" was highest right before he got injured, as far as team-control and what not goes.

this.

Sent from my USCfans guide to being an uneducated baseball fan using Tapatalk

**dabynsky** · 08-06-2012, 08:31 PM

Which is why the odds of him getting extended have gone up dramatically. If the return isn't a king's ransom to stock the system then there is no point in dealing him.

**2SeamHeat** · 08-06-2012, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by X-Factor

Well, i kinda disagree...I mean, yeah, Garza should bring a bigger haul, but Demp's trade value was never higher at any point in his career than it was when we traded him...and if we didn't trade Demp during this trade deadline, we probably were going to have to let him walk after the season and take the comp pick...We still have time to trade Garza. they maximized potential returns, imo...just an unfortunate injury.

I believe that Dempster's trade value was highest before he went to the DL for a second stint this year with an injury that, reportedly, didn't need the precautionary DL time. His trade value was highest in early-mid June, and he should have been traded then. Why? At that point, only Garza had a higher value amongst SPs that were readily available to trade... and Garza was not performing up to Dempster's level. Garza should have been traded Late June to early July. The lack of urgency in taking advantage of what should have been a huge market in their favor discourages me.

Now, the best scenario is that the FO uses this injury issue to get Garza to extended somewhat cheaply. If they do so, and he performs up to the level where most believe he should be, then they might be able to turn him into frontline prospects next season. Even if not, they still have him in the rotation, which could be huge if Vizcaino turns into the stud so many believe he has the chance to become.

I will agree with you, though, that the FO wasn't going to get the price they were asking for mid season. If the report from Detroit is true that the Cubs asked for Smyly, Turner, AND Castellanos for Garza and Barney, that's wickedly extreme. I know they were asking for that over the winter, but without Barney in the mix. The Tigers backed off then because they didn't want to move Turner. Now it seems that those trade talks fell apart because the Cubs insisted on netting all three once again, and only because they added in Barney. Had the FO come down a bit, they could have landed Turner, Brantly, and probably another middling arm like Rondon. They then could have flipped Brantly or Castillo to TB for another arm... since they'd have a surplus of MLB-ready catchers.

I do think that they did get strong value for what they did do under those circumstances. However, had they capitalized on situations earlier and shown some sort of urgency... the deals could have been quite a bit better.

**dabynsky** · 08-06-2012, 09:20 PM

Well the issue with trading Dempster earlier is that Dempster was going to steer negotiations to the Dodgers and the Dodgers weren't going to give up any of their top prospects. The plan worked with Dempster to the extent that Dempster allowed it to work. Garza's injury is bad luck, but I don't see the advantage to selling short on the dollar for Garza which seems to have been the other option.

**Rice Cube** · 08-06-2012, 09:49 PM

As with Dempster the option of the qualifying offer exists for Garza next season. So whatever trade the Cubs make has to exceed that qualifying offer. I don't think you're going to get a lot for Garza in the offseason (should've traded him last offseason) so it seems the Cubs' options have been restricted a bit here.

**TheChicagoFan** · 08-06-2012, 10:23 PM

It's hard to believe that he's the same player as he was in Tampa Bay when he was actually a pretty good pitcher. Kind of fell apart on a bad team. I think the best chance the Cubs had was with the Yankees midseason this year and that never panned out.

**DewsSox79** · 08-07-2012, 02:28 AM

out indefinetly. wont pick up a ball for 2 weeks. the rumor was that theos plan was demp to atl for delgado, garza to the rangers for a bigger and better haul than what the cubs gave up for him. extending the unknown is a risk, and paying for a guy that wont be on a contender is a bit pointless.

Sent from my USCfans guide to being an uneducated baseball fan using Tapatalk

**2SeamHeat** · 08-07-2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by DewsSox79

out indefinetly. wont pick up a ball for 2 weeks. the rumor was that theos plan was demp to atl for delgado, garza to the rangers for a bigger and better haul than what the cubs gave up for him. extending the unknown is a risk, and paying for a guy that wont be on a contender is a bit pointless.

Sent from my USCfans guide to being an uneducated baseball fan using Tapatalk

Pointless, unless you have an eye for the future and realize that your system isn't going to be producing any worthwhile starting pitching for 2-3 years at the very earliest. If the Cubs go out and pick up a couple of topnotch SPs, or just one and hang onto Garza (assuming the elbow issues doesn't turn into a career-altering thing), the team could compete in just a couple of years if some of the positional specs pan out in that time. However, if you're only looking 4-5 years down the line... then what's even the point of trying to pick up near-ready MLB specs as they were hoping for at the deadline? It would actually make more sense to pick up guys in either High A or AA, rather than target guys who could jump into the rotation either this year or next... which is what they were doing.

**2SeamHeat** · 08-07-2012, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by TheChicagoFan

It's hard to believe that he's the same player as he was in Tampa Bay when he was actually a pretty good pitcher. Kind of fell apart on a bad team. I think the best chance the Cubs had was with the Yankees midseason this year and that never panned out.

He pitched tremendously well last year. This year, he really only had 4 starts all year long that could qualify as bad. He hasn't been throwing the 1 or 2-run gems 3 of 4 outings like he did last year, but he certainly hasn't fallen apart.