MLB Trade Rumors: Dodgers Reportedly Set Their Sights on Cubs Pitcher Matt Garza
Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com is reporting the Dodgers have now turned their focus to Garza and could look to bring him to Los Angeles to join their current ace, Clayton Kershaw, to shore up their rotation:
The price for Dempster appears to have been too high for the Dodgers' liking, and that might have forced them to look elsewhere on the Cubs roster. Per the same report from Levine, it will take less prospects to land Garza than it would for Dempster.
One of those reasons is based on the fact that Dempster is having a career year this season. He is pitching to an ERA nearly half that of Garza's, and that's enough to send Dempster's value sky-high.
Matt Garza left tonight's game with cramping in his right triceps. X-rays were negative.— Chicago Cubs (@Cubs) July 22, 2012
If the problems persist, however slight they might be, Garza's price could come down even further, and that would be a huge benefit for the Dodgers since they wouldn't have to give up as much young talent to acquire him.
In turn, they could use their very best young pieces to bring in some much-needed offense.
Garza would be a great addition to the Dodgers' stellar rotation. Currently, Los Angeles starters have the second-best collective ERA in the MLB. With the addition of Garza, the Dodgers would have one of the deepest rotations in baseball.
With experience pitching in the AL East and in the postseason, Garza has seen some of the toughest lineups in baseball throughout his career and flourished in the process. His 3.91 ERA in 2012 will no doubt be reduced upon entering one of the weakest hitting divisions in baseball.
To start the day on Saturday, the Dodgers were merely two games back of a wild-card spot and 2.5 games behind the division leader San Francisco Giants. Adding Garza and some offense would certainly help Los Angeles make up the ground it needs to in order to make the postseason.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?