Would you trade Marmol for Garland?

[JonnyRed]

Most of the trade suggestions on talk radio are complete garbage, but a Sox fan called up yesterday and posed a return of Garland to the northside for Marmol. Would you do it?

 

As much as I'd hate to lose a potential stud closer in Marmol, I'd make the trade. Garland would be the perfect #3; he doesn't overwhelm you with his stuff, but he eats up innings and posts a solid ERA. Plus, as much as I hate to admit, he has playoff experience as well. And I think we could survive with Demp and Howry holding down the back of the pen.

[NCCubFan]

I would not. I don't think Garland would be much of an upgrade over what we already have, and starting pitching is not a weakness for the Cubs. And Marmol should just continue to get better since he's still fairly new to pitching.

[Schwarber Fan]

No way

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Nope. I value Marmol much more than I do Garland.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'd rather have Vazquez.

[shnsajax]

I've been talking about the #3 starter for a while now, and no way would I do that. The biggest strength our #3 start has is a deep bullpen right now.

[apete6]

No. Marmol will be the closer of this team in 2009 at the latest and will be under team control until 2011 (I think). Garland has 1 more year on his deal at $11 million and will require a substantial raise after that.

 

Also, I think the odds of finding an average starter out of the group of: Veal, Gallagher, Mateo, etc...is higher than finding a dominant bullpen guy for cheap.

 

Now if the Sox want Matt Karchner for Garland, then we're talking.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Which starter would you replace? Again, we have 5 starters with ERAs under 4.00, and 4 of which 30 years of age or younger. We think Marquis is the most likely to regress over time, but he has the 2nd largest contract of the 5 (currently) and certainly has pitched well enough to retain his spot in the rotation. Marshall is currently going through his "He can't really be this good, can he?" evaluation phase with the fans and organization, but has done nothing to lose his spot either. The other 3 shouldn't lose their starting spots regardless.

 

Also, Marmol is cheap. The Cubs have overspent at too many positions, one of them being middle relief. Trading Marmol for Garland just makes our bullpen less valuable (by having to replace Marmol with a likely veteran earning more money) and our starting rotation more expensive. And of course, our rotation is already the greatest strength of this team. Why weaken one to improve the other.

 

This team needs to shore up its lineup, not increase costs in an area of relative strength while dealing away one of our more intriguing assets.

[A New Era]

No and I can assure you Hendry and Lou wouldn't either.

[Keener98]

Most of the trade suggestions on talk radio are complete garbage, but a Sox fan called up yesterday and posed a return of Garland to the northside for Marmol. Would you do it?

 

As much as I'd hate to lose a potential stud closer in Marmol, I'd make the trade. Garland would be the perfect #3; he doesn't overwhelm you with his stuff, but he eats up innings and posts a solid ERA. Plus, as much as I hate to admit, he has playoff experience as well. And I think we could survive with Demp and Howry holding down the back of the pen.

 

How would Garland be a perfect number 3 when Hill has better numbers than him? Wouldnt that make Hill a perfect #3? Hill beats him in every statistical category

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Which starter would you replace? Again, we have 5 starters with ERAs under 4.00, and 4 of which 30 years of age or younger. We think Marquis is the most likely to regress over time, but he has the 2nd largest contract of the 5 (currently) and certainly has pitched well enough to retain his spot in the rotation. Marshall is currently going through his "He can't really be this good, can he?" evaluation phase with the fans and organization, but has done nothing to lose his spot either. The other 3 shouldn't lose their starting spots regardless.

 

Also, Marmol is cheap. The Cubs have overspent at too many positions, one of them being middle relief. Trading Marmol for Garland just makes our bullpen less valuable (by having to replace Marmol with a likely veteran earning more money) and our starting rotation more expensive. And of course, our rotation is already the greatest strength of this team. Why weaken one to improve the other.

 

This team needs to shore up its lineup, not increase costs in an area of relative strength while dealing away one of our more intriguing assets.

 

I think part of the process would be to try to sell high with Marshall during or after you've acquired the starter in order to shore up the lineup while maintaining/strengthening the rotation. For example, something like Marmol + Cedeno + lower level MiLB guy for Vazquez (with maybe some of his future contract taken care of) then use Marshall + Pie to get Teixeira, or something like that, you get the idea. Of course, our apparent inability to add significant salary would probably make any of these scenarios implausible.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Garland's ERA+ the last 6 seasons-

 

100

99

100

127

103

110

 

He's had one good year - 2005, year the Sox won the WS which was also the only year he had a WHIP below 1.3. He's just not that good.

[Electron Blue]

Garland's ERA+ the last 6 seasons-

 

100

99

100

127

103

110

 

He's had one good year - 2005, year the Sox won the WS which was also the only year he had a WHIP below 1.3. He's just not that good.

 

and who didn't have a great year on that Sox staff... everyone was pitching out of their mind. That was even Neal Cotts stud year.

[A New Era]

Garland's ERA+ the last 6 seasons-

 

100

99

100

127

103

110

 

He's had one good year - 2005, year the Sox won the WS which was also the only year he had a WHIP below 1.3. He's just not that good.

 

and who didn't have a great year on that Sox staff... everyone was pitching out of their mind. That was even Neal Cotts stud year.

 

Kinda like this year for us aye? Why mess with what's workin.

[Soul]

I wouldn't because I don't think we've tapped Marmol's full potential yet. He could be a fantastic closer, and that has alot of value.

 

Maybe someone can shoot me down, but it seems like Garland's been pitching forever. I don't think he's old, but I do wonder if the mileage is building up on his arm.

 

Doesn't this sort of sound like D-Train for Clement, mach II?

 

I'm chicken. Scared. I wouldn't do it.

[Backtobanks]

Most of the trade suggestions on talk radio are complete garbage, but a Sox fan called up yesterday and posed a return of Garland to the northside for Marmol. Would you do it?

 

As much as I'd hate to lose a potential stud closer in Marmol, I'd make the trade. Garland would be the perfect #3; he doesn't overwhelm you with his stuff, but he eats up innings and posts a solid ERA. Plus, as much as I hate to admit, he has playoff experience as well. And I think we could survive with Demp and Howry holding down the back of the pen.

 

You've been drinking too much of that Kenny Williams KoolAide. Marmol has lights out stuff and will be the closer in another year while Garland has been complaining of a knot in his shoulder. No Thanks.

[illiniguy]

Wouldn't this be us trading for Matt Karchner again? Marmol is way to young, cheap, and talented to do this.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Garland has thrown lots of innings the past few years. He is durable, I'll give him that. I think that even now, he's still living a bit off the shine of being minor league pitcher of the year back in the mid 90s or thereabouts. Just never been that effective a major league pitcher.

[erik316wttn]

I'd see what Matt Karchner is doing these days, sign him, then trade him back for Garland.

[JeffH]

Is this really something we're spending valuable bandwith discussing?

[professahesse]

Keep Marmol. The movement on his pitches gives me a tingle.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

no

[Twiggy]

No way. Marmol is cheat and could be a lights out closer. The Cubs have enough starting pitching.

[dew1679666265]

No way. Marmol is cheat

 

:shock: Marmol's been cheating, never knew that.

 

Sorry, I tried but couldn't resist. :D

[JimSorgi]

No way.