Cubs Acquire Garza for Archer, Lee, Guyer, Chirinos & Fuld

[David]

Craig Calcaterra

 

Dec 9, 2010, 1:45 PM EST

6 Comments

Matt Garza throwing

 

Did I say I was saying goodbye to the Winter Meetings? Well, sure, but they’re more a state of mind than an actual location anyway, so I can pass along some buzz I just heard from a major league source: The Cubs and Rays are discussing a Matt Garza trade.

 

I know some have discounted the possibility of such a beast — and I don’t have any intelligence about the type of return Tampa Bay could expect — but I’m hearing that as of a few minutes ago, the Rays and Cubs are “working on it.”

 

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/09/source-the-rays-and-cubs-are-talking-about-a-matt-garza-trade/

 

 

a couple hours old

[erik316wttn]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

Colvin I'd send in a heartbeat. Marshall I don't know.

[abuck1220]

I do want Garza, but I don't know if I want him badly enough to trade Lee for him.

 

For the reasons TT outlined, now would be a good time to trade Lee but you have to think there is better value at a position of need than Matt Garza.

 

Kevin Slowey is available, but he's worse than Garza... but there were some rumblings that some teams also called on the Twins for Francisco Liriano and the word was they don't have a reason to move him (which is true), but I wonder if they are open to the idea. Anyone who has dealt with me in Fantasy Baseball knows I value Liriano more than any other player in baseball so I'm a bit biased, but if he could be had I'd try and see what it would take to pry him away

 

slightly off topic, but i would like to get into a fantasy baseball league with you that involves money.

 

It's not like I draft him in the first round you presumptuous dolt.

 

 

hey genius, you said you "value Liriano more than any other player in baseball."

[shnsajax]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

I would too

[dew1679666265]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

Interesting stat:

 

2010 WAR

Garza – 1.8

Marshall – 2.2

 

Garza's been worth a lot more almost every year, but that jumped out at me.

[jersey cubs fan]

hey genius, you said you "value Liriano more than any other player in baseball."

 

Okay Mr. Literal.

[KingCubsFan]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

I would too

Marshall's really good, but I couldn't blame Hendry for trading away two players who very well might be at their peak value.

[haubrich91]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

If it's just those two with no prospects involved, then yes, I'm in too.

[dew1679666265]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

 

I would too

Marshall's really good, but I couldn't blame Hendry for trading away two players who very well might be at their peak value.

 

I'm torn on the trade. Relievers are volatile, but Marshall is a good enough pitcher that he could be one of the few who doesn't fluctuate season to season. I'd struggle to pull the trigger on a potentially dominant reliever for a #3-4 starter. But, he's just a reliever.

 

He's also still making less than a million dollars and won't have save numbers or anything to artificially boost that salary up.

[Guest]

The point of adding Garza is a near-term upgrade. Yes, we'd have him for 3 years, but they will all be more expensive arbitration years where he isn't really discounted all that much. Trading valuable pieces of the current team to get him is counter productive. Sure, it's not terrible as a value proposition(well, Colvin and Marshall might be, but that's not the point), but you're just making it harder to make the team better. If you want Garza so badly, trade the prospects. Otherwise, you're just barely treading water on trading for him.

[javy knows my name]

So, am I the only one who would jump all over Marshall and Colvin for Garza?

I might jump on the two of them to prevent them from going to TB for so little a return

[jersey cubs fan]

The point of adding Garza is a near-term upgrade. Yes, we'd have him for 3 years, but they will all be more expensive arbitration years where he isn't really discounted all that much. Trading valuable pieces of the current team to get him is counter productive. Sure, it's not terrible as a value proposition(well, Colvin and Marshall might be, but that's not the point), but you're just making it harder to make the team better. If you want Garza so badly, trade the prospects. Otherwise, you're just barely treading water on trading for him.

 

Not sure why you are pretending that is the only point of a trade. I think the point would be to upgrade now as well as acquire a piece that can really help over the intermediate and longterm. He just turned 27 and won't be a free agent for a while. Trading away prospects makes it all that much more harder to be better later.

[Guest]

The point of adding Garza is a near-term upgrade. Yes, we'd have him for 3 years, but they will all be more expensive arbitration years where he isn't really discounted all that much. Trading valuable pieces of the current team to get him is counter productive. Sure, it's not terrible as a value proposition(well, Colvin and Marshall might be, but that's not the point), but you're just making it harder to make the team better. If you want Garza so badly, trade the prospects. Otherwise, you're just barely treading water on trading for him.

 

Not sure why you are pretending that is the only point of a trade. I think the point would be to upgrade now as well as acquire a piece that can really help over the intermediate and longterm. He just turned 27 and won't be a free agent for a while. Trading away prospects makes it all that much more harder to be better later.

 

Trading away prospects makes it harder to be better later than trading away young, cheap, productive MLBers(aka, what we hope the prospects become when they grow up)?

[jersey cubs fan]

The point of adding Garza is a near-term upgrade. Yes, we'd have him for 3 years, but they will all be more expensive arbitration years where he isn't really discounted all that much. Trading valuable pieces of the current team to get him is counter productive. Sure, it's not terrible as a value proposition(well, Colvin and Marshall might be, but that's not the point), but you're just making it harder to make the team better. If you want Garza so badly, trade the prospects. Otherwise, you're just barely treading water on trading for him.

 

Not sure why you are pretending that is the only point of a trade. I think the point would be to upgrade now as well as acquire a piece that can really help over the intermediate and longterm. He just turned 27 and won't be a free agent for a while. Trading away prospects makes it all that much more harder to be better later.

 

Trading away prospects makes it harder to be better later than trading away young, cheap, productive MLBers(aka, what we hope the prospects become when they grow up)?

 

Not sure which people we are talking about now, but a few names won't be cheap for long either. And names like Colvin should be treated like Vitters in the trade 'em if you can department.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm torn on the trade. Relievers are volatile, but Marshall is a good enough pitcher that he could be one of the few who doesn't fluctuate season to season. I'd struggle to pull the trigger on a potentially dominant reliever for a #3-4 starter. But, he's just a reliever.

 

He's also still making less than a million dollars and won't have save numbers or anything to artificially boost that salary up.

 

He's not making less than a million dollars.

[dew1679666265]

The point of adding Garza is a near-term upgrade. Yes, we'd have him for 3 years, but they will all be more expensive arbitration years where he isn't really discounted all that much. Trading valuable pieces of the current team to get him is counter productive. Sure, it's not terrible as a value proposition(well, Colvin and Marshall might be, but that's not the point), but you're just making it harder to make the team better. If you want Garza so badly, trade the prospects. Otherwise, you're just barely treading water on trading for him.

 

That's my concern as well, since we'd then have to replace Marshall in the pen. Maybe do the Colvin/Marshall for Garza trade and then the Chirinos/Dolis for Davis/O'Day trade? It swaps quality relievers (Marshall for O'Day) while adding Garza to the rotation.

 

I'm still not sure I'd do it from a value perspective, but that would be a way to keep the ML team fully stocked.

[dew1679666265]

He's not making less than a million dollars.

 

My bad. I looked at Cot's saying he was making 950K and neglected to realize that was this past year's salary. Even still, I have trouble believing a reliever who doesn't have saves will go above $1.5 mil or so, that's still pretty cheap if he can be a 2 WAR player again.

[jersey cubs fan]

He's not making less than a million dollars.

 

My bad. I looked at Cot's saying he was making 950K and neglected to realize that was this past year's salary. Even still, I have trouble believing a reliever who doesn't have saves will go above $1.5 mil or so, that's still pretty cheap if he can be a 2 WAR player again.

 

2nd arbitration year, I'd bet he goes past 1.5m. Then next offseason he's probably going to get a longterm extention, and me no likey longterm contracts for relievers.

[dew1679666265]

2nd arbitration year, I'd bet he goes past 1.5m. Then next offseason he's probably going to get a longterm extention, and me no likey longterm contracts for relievers.

 

You think he'd get near a $1 million raise? Even if he got $2 mil, that's a decent value for a guy like Marshall.

 

And generally I agree on no longterm contracts, but Marshall may be a bit different. He's a reliever not because he's not a good pitcher (like most relievers are), but because he doesn't have the stamina to get past 150 innings in a year. Ability isn't the question with him like it is with most relievers.

 

He'll be going on 30 by then, though, so I wouldn't want a big money extension for sure.

[Guancous]

Isn't Lee supposed to be some sort of uber-prospect, or am I mistaken?

 

I'd say his upside is that of a .350-.360 OBP, 10ish homers and 40-50 steals, while playing a GG caliber SS.

 

That sounds a lot cheaper than trading for Jose Reyes.

[Northside Blues]

im not so sure marshall wouldnt be a similar starter to garza.

[dew1679666265]

Isn't Lee supposed to be some sort of uber-prospect, or am I mistaken?

 

I'd say his upside is that of a .350-.360 OBP, 10ish homers and 40-50 steals, while playing a GG caliber SS.

 

That sounds a lot cheaper than trading for Jose Reyes.

 

Reyes is a sure thing. HJ may or may not reach that ceiling. And if he does, it'll be 2-3 more years (at least).

[dew1679666265]

im not so sure marshall wouldnt be a similar starter to garza.

 

Marshall's problems have never been talent or production related, they've been endurance related. Apparently he can't go past 150 innings, I think it is.

[17 Seconds]

anybody else think garza looks like a vampire?

[CUBZ99]

What is sad is that Garza would have had the best WHIP of any Cubs starter last year, and he faced the Yankees and Red Sox for about 1/3 of his games. And people are still talking about him like he is a bum or equivalent to Wells. Throw Wells in the NL East and lets see how his numbers fare.