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

[dew1679666265]

I can understand if you wouldn't want to trade prospects and would rather just spend money on Webb. But Garza was once one of the top pitching prospect in the game. Considering Webb has had major shoulder trouble, hasn't pitched in two years and was last seen throwing in the mid-80's, I think Garza's chances at being elite are at least equal to Webb's.

 

Not wanting to trade prospects is part of it. However, Garza's xFIPs scare me, as he hasn't had one as good as Wells' best season. He just hasn't lived up to potential. Webb on the other hand has been an elite pitcher and the only question with him is health. He was clocked most recently in the mid-80s, but he's a low-90s guy at his peak anyway. He's never been a power pitcher, so as long as he's got the same stuff, he's got a realistic chance at being elite again.

[mhuber92211]

Reading this thread seems to be the perfect example of "Stat" type people discussing a player with an "Eyes" type player. Clearly watching Garza he has dominant pitcher type stuff and is an obvious upgrade. However, just as clearly for those that study advanced metrics, he is a 3-4th starter.

 

Perhaps this is a good poll question for the board to get an idea of how many posters sit in which camp

[17 Seconds]

pretty sure the advanced stats show him to be more than a 3-4 starter

 

besides, judging a player based on "stuff" at this point of his career is kind of pointless. you can factor in the division he plays in and stuff, but the dude is 27. it's highly likely that he's already shown what his "stuff" does in the majors. we're not talking about a 22 year old guy who hasn't really put it together yet. garza has put it together. he is what he is at this point.

 

anyways, i like garza. i hope w eget him.

[dew1679666265]

pretty sure the advanced stats show him to be more than a 3-4 starter

 

besides, judging a player based on "stuff" at this point of his career is kind of pointless. you can factor in the division he plays in and stuff, but the dude is 27. it's highly likely that he's already shown what his "stuff" does in the majors. we're not talking about a 22 year old guy who hasn't really put it together yet. garza has put it together. he is what he is at this point.

 

anyways, i like garza. i hope w eget him.

 

It's the advanced stats that aren't thrilled with him, actually. He did have two seasons of 3+ WAR, but his best xFIP has been 4.21 – worse than Wells' best season (4.09 xFIP for Wells). His career xFIP is 4.45, even though his career ERA is 3.97. I tend to think he's been the beneficiary of some really good Tampa defenses, something he wouldn't have in Chicago.

[Northside Blues]

FWIW xFIP seemingly has every pitcher as a 4.00-5.00 pitcher. it's 100% regression to the mean, essentially. There are maybe 20 starters who are true sub 4 xFIP guys,

[dew1679666265]

FWIW xFIP seemingly has every pitcher as a 4.00-5.00 pitcher. it's 100% regression to the mean, essentially. There are maybe 20 starters who are true sub 4 xFIP guys,

 

I'm counting about 38 starters at sub-4.00 xFIP. That would be, basically, the ace of each staff plus a few.

 

Here's The Harball Times' explanation of xFIP:

 

xFIP

Expected Fielding Independent Pitching. This is an experimental stat that adjusts FIP and "normalizes" the home run component. Research has shown that home runs allowed are pretty much a function of flyballs allowed and home park, so xFIP is based on the average number of home runs allowed per outfield fly. Theoretically, this should be a better predicter of a pitcher's future ERA.

 

And FIP, just because it's mentioned in the xFIP definition:

 

FIP

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded. FIP was invented by Tangotiger.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

Pretty much this.

 

And I think you meant AL East.

 

b/c whip is far from the end all stat by which to measure pitchers

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

Pretty much this.

 

And I think you meant AL East.

 

b/c whip is far from the end all stat by which to measure pitchers

 

True. In and of itself WHIP isn't a good judge of a pitcher. However, what CUBZ99's point was is that Garza put up pretty respectable numbers last season, pitching 1/3 of his games against the very difficult Yankee and Red Sox lineups. If you take Randy Wells and his similar numbers against the NL Central and transferred them to the AL East, they would not be so respectable. And I agree. Garza was a similar pitcher to Wells, but he faced much stiffer competition, so his numbers are therefore more impressive.

[mookie]

I am trying to withhold judgement on this possible trade, but it is difficult. Tampa is hard to trade with, so I hope there isn't a ton of regret on who is shipped out of the Cubs system.

[Tryptamine]

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.

 

Pretty much this.

 

And I think you meant AL East.

 

b/c whip is far from the end all stat by which to measure pitchers

 

True. In and of itself WHIP isn't a good judge of a pitcher. However, what CUBZ99's point was is that Garza put up pretty respectable numbers last season, pitching 1/3 of his games against the very difficult Yankee and Red Sox lineups. If you take Randy Wells and his similar numbers against the NL Central and transferred them to the AL East, they would not be so respectable. And I agree. Garza was a similar pitcher to Wells, but he faced much stiffer competition, so his numbers are therefore more impressive.

 

Even the stats that adjust for league/park like ERA+ don't support Garza being particularly special. In fact the only team he had an ERA in excess of 4 of was the Yankees. He did amazingly well against the Orioles, Red Sox and Blue Jays. The AL east is certainly better than the NL central, but the effect doesn't seem to be nearly as large as people are making it out to be.

[Guancous]

Has anyone heard who the prospects would be?

[dew1679666265]

Has anyone heard who the prospects would be?

 

The only rumor that has included specifics has been from Levine, who said the Rays wanted Chirinos, a "top SS prospect" and two other prospects.

[Backtobanks]

The link for this blog(The Process Report) was on MLBTR and obviously written by a Rays fan:

 

The Template For a Matt Garza Trade to The Chicago Cubs

Posted on December 10, 2010 by R.J. Anderson

Billy Beane pulled the trigger on a surprising trade during the 2007-2008 offseason by sending Dan Haren to Arizona. At the time, Haren had three seasons remaining on his contract – part of an extension that held a value of roughly $16 million. He was coming off a career best season according to FanGraphs WAR, and had win values of 4, 4, and 4.9 in the past three seasons. In exchange for Haren (and Connor Robertson) the A’s received Brett Anderson, Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Carlos Gonzalez, Dana Eveland, and Greg Smith.

 

That package appeared to include the Diamondbacks’ best and brightest; with four of the D-Backs’ top ten heading to Oakland: Gonzalez (1), Anderson (3), Cunningham (7), and Carter (8). Gonzalez (22) and Anderson (36) also earned placement on BA’s subsequent top 100 list, suggesting they were amongst the game’s 40 best prospects.

 

Garza has three years of control remaining but lacks the locked-in salary and performance that Haren held. Garza has about eight wins over the last three years, halving Haren, but carries ostensible upside and the benefit of moving out of the game’s best division. For those reasons, though, Garza likely holds less trade value now than Haren did then.

 

Nevertheless, the package that Bruce Levine reported about doesn’t seem too farfetched. Robinson Chirinos is the only player named, and while BA will not release their top 10 list for the Cubs until 2011, Kevin Goldstein ranked him as the system’s twelfth best prospect. The identities of the other three players are unknown, but one has to assume that the shortstop prospect might be Hak-Ju Lee (whom Goldstein ranks as the fifth best) and outfielder Brett Jackson (ranked as the system’s best prospect). The last player, again reported as a top prospect, could be one of the Cubs’ arms, like Trey McNutt (second), Chris Archer (third), Chris Carpenter (sixth), or Jay Jackson (ninth). Jackson ranked 74th on BA’s top 100 list last season and after hitting .316/.420/.517 at High-A and .276/.366/.465 at Double-A without showing a notable weakness, he figures to move up – perhaps into the top 50. The pitcher Jackson also finished in the top 100, at 98.

 

A Garza-to-Chicago deal probably won’t top the Haren-to-Arizona in terms of mass or quality, but really it shouldn’t. Haren was the better pitcher. Don’t be surprised if Garza is dealt, nor if the trade quickly replenishes the Rays’ system alongside the upcoming draft.

[rawaction]

No way on Earth would I trade Chirinos, Lee, Jackson and Jackson (worst pitcher named) for Garza.

 

If it's Chirinos, Lee, Jay Jackson, and another prospect (not as good as those 3), Tampa better be throwing in something else.

[Guest]

It's like he got it in his mind to look for a trade of a pitcher that got a big return and had a similar time on his contract, and then went wild with it as a comparison without stopping to think that Garza can't hold a candle to Haren's performance.

[CUBZ99]

The link for this blog(The Process Report) was on MLBTR and obviously written by a Rays fan:

 

The Template For a Matt Garza Trade to The Chicago Cubs

Posted on December 10, 2010 by R.J. Anderson

Billy Beane pulled the trigger on a surprising trade during the 2007-2008 offseason by sending Dan Haren to Arizona. At the time, Haren had three seasons remaining on his contract – part of an extension that held a value of roughly $16 million. He was coming off a career best season according to FanGraphs WAR, and had win values of 4, 4, and 4.9 in the past three seasons. In exchange for Haren (and Connor Robertson) the A’s received Brett Anderson, Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Carlos Gonzalez, Dana Eveland, and Greg Smith.

 

That package appeared to include the Diamondbacks’ best and brightest; with four of the D-Backs’ top ten heading to Oakland: Gonzalez (1), Anderson (3), Cunningham (7), and Carter (8). Gonzalez (22) and Anderson (36) also earned placement on BA’s subsequent top 100 list, suggesting they were amongst the game’s 40 best prospects.

 

Garza has three years of control remaining but lacks the locked-in salary and performance that Haren held. Garza has about eight wins over the last three years, halving Haren, but carries ostensible upside and the benefit of moving out of the game’s best division. For those reasons, though, Garza likely holds less trade value now than Haren did then.

 

Nevertheless, the package that Bruce Levine reported about doesn’t seem too farfetched. Robinson Chirinos is the only player named, and while BA will not release their top 10 list for the Cubs until 2011, Kevin Goldstein ranked him as the system’s twelfth best prospect. The identities of the other three players are unknown, but one has to assume that the shortstop prospect might be Hak-Ju Lee (whom Goldstein ranks as the fifth best) and outfielder Brett Jackson (ranked as the system’s best prospect). The last player, again reported as a top prospect, could be one of the Cubs’ arms, like Trey McNutt (second), Chris Archer (third), Chris Carpenter (sixth), or Jay Jackson (ninth). Jackson ranked 74th on BA’s top 100 list last season and after hitting .316/.420/.517 at High-A and .276/.366/.465 at Double-A without showing a notable weakness, he figures to move up – perhaps into the top 50. The pitcher Jackson also finished in the top 100, at 98.

 

A Garza-to-Chicago deal probably won’t top the Haren-to-Arizona in terms of mass or quality, but really it shouldn’t. Haren was the better pitcher. Don’t be surprised if Garza is dealt, nor if the trade quickly replenishes the Rays’ system alongside the upcoming draft.

 

That would explain why Hendry hasn't pulled the trigger yet. I could see Hendry trading Chirinos, Lee, and J. Jackson in a trade, but I highly doubt he would trade B. Jackson, ARcher or McNutt. trade

[dew1679666265]

It's like he got it in his mind to look for a trade of a pitcher that got a big return and had a similar time on his contract, and then went wild with it as a comparison without stopping to think that Garza can't hold a candle to Haren's performance.

 

Yeah, he even admitted that Garza's WAR has been half that of Haren, but still tried to compare prospects evenly between the DBacks and Cubs.

 

That would be a horrid trade, but luckily I don't think there's any credibility to it whatsoever.

[JonJayCutler]

If Brett Jackson is in any package for Matt Garza, I for one won't be watching the 2011 Cubs.

 

A package of Lee, Chirinos, and J. Jackson would be pushing it as it is.

[Backtobanks]

It's like he got it in his mind to look for a trade of a pitcher that got a big return and had a similar time on his contract, and then went wild with it as a comparison without stopping to think that Garza can't hold a candle to Haren's performance.

 

Yeah, he even admitted that Garza's WAR has been half that of Haren, but still tried to compare prospects evenly between the DBacks and Cubs.

 

That would be a horrid trade, but luckily I don't think there's any credibility to it whatsoever.

 

I would think they can't be asking for all of those players because the rumors wouldn't have said a deal centered on Chirinos if he was the 4th best prospect in the deal. It's like saying we're making a deal centered on getting Ryan Theriot and it included Pujols, Holliday, and Wainwright.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The link for this blog(The Process Report) was on MLBTR and obviously written by a Rays fan:

 

The Template For a Matt Garza Trade to The Chicago Cubs

Posted on December 10, 2010 by R.J. Anderson

Billy Beane pulled the trigger on a surprising trade during the 2007-2008 offseason by sending Dan Haren to Arizona. At the time, Haren had three seasons remaining on his contract – part of an extension that held a value of roughly $16 million. He was coming off a career best season according to FanGraphs WAR, and had win values of 4, 4, and 4.9 in the past three seasons. In exchange for Haren (and Connor Robertson) the A’s received Brett Anderson, Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Carlos Gonzalez, Dana Eveland, and Greg Smith.

 

That package appeared to include the Diamondbacks’ best and brightest; with four of the D-Backs’ top ten heading to Oakland: Gonzalez (1), Anderson (3), Cunningham (7), and Carter (8). Gonzalez (22) and Anderson (36) also earned placement on BA’s subsequent top 100 list, suggesting they were amongst the game’s 40 best prospects.

 

Garza has three years of control remaining but lacks the locked-in salary and performance that Haren held. Garza has about eight wins over the last three years, halving Haren, but carries ostensible upside and the benefit of moving out of the game’s best division. For those reasons, though, Garza likely holds less trade value now than Haren did then.

 

Nevertheless, the package that Bruce Levine reported about doesn’t seem too farfetched. Robinson Chirinos is the only player named, and while BA will not release their top 10 list for the Cubs until 2011, Kevin Goldstein ranked him as the system’s twelfth best prospect. The identities of the other three players are unknown, but one has to assume that the shortstop prospect might be Hak-Ju Lee (whom Goldstein ranks as the fifth best) and outfielder Brett Jackson (ranked as the system’s best prospect). The last player, again reported as a top prospect, could be one of the Cubs’ arms, like Trey McNutt (second), Chris Archer (third), Chris Carpenter (sixth), or Jay Jackson (ninth). Jackson ranked 74th on BA’s top 100 list last season and after hitting .316/.420/.517 at High-A and .276/.366/.465 at Double-A without showing a notable weakness, he figures to move up – perhaps into the top 50. The pitcher Jackson also finished in the top 100, at 98.

 

A Garza-to-Chicago deal probably won’t top the Haren-to-Arizona in terms of mass or quality, but really it shouldn’t. Haren was the better pitcher. Don’t be surprised if Garza is dealt, nor if the trade quickly replenishes the Rays’ system alongside the upcoming draft.

 

That would explain why Hendry hasn't pulled the trigger yet. I could see Hendry trading Chirinos, Lee, and J. Jackson in a trade, but I highly doubt he would trade B. Jackson, ARcher or McNutt. trade

 

By all means, trade Lee, Jackson, and Archer/McNutt for Garza so NSBB can finally band together and lynch Jim Hendry.

[Guancous]

If Brett Jackson is in any package for Matt Garza, I for one won't be watching the 2011 Cubs.

 

A package of Lee, Chirinos, and J. Jackson would be pushing it as it is.

 

The author must have mistaken Garza for Hellickson.

[Northside Blues]

FWIW xFIP seemingly has every pitcher as a 4.00-5.00 pitcher. it's 100% regression to the mean, essentially. There are maybe 20 starters who are true sub 4 xFIP guys,

 

I'm counting about 38 starters at sub-4.00 xFIP. That would be, basically, the ace of each staff plus a few.

 

Two things.

 

1. xFIP is inherently league based do to the league constant. This year was an extreme low, that alone will increase. So all xFIPs will increase.

2. Sure, there are 38 starters below 4.00. If 100 people flip 10 coins about 17 of them are going to have 7 heads or more. That doesn't mean that 17 of them have a "true ability" to flip a coin on heads 70% of the time. Of those 38 starters only a little over half probably have true ability of a 4.00 or lower xFIP. It might even be lower if you include point #1.

[sneakypower]

If Brett Jackson is in any package for Matt Garza, I for one won't be watching the 2011 Cubs.

 

A package of Lee, Chirinos, and J. Jackson would be pushing it as it is.

 

The author must have mistaken Garza for Hellickson.

David Price

[dew1679666265]

Two things.

 

1. xFIP is inherently league based do to the league constant. This year was an extreme low, that alone will increase. So all xFIPs will increase.

2. Sure, there are 38 starters below 4.00. If 100 people flip 10 coins about 17 of them are going to have 7 heads or more. That doesn't mean that 17 of them have a "true ability" to flip a coin on heads 70% of the time. Of those 38 starters only a little over half probably have true ability of a 4.00 or lower xFIP. It might even be lower if you include point #1.

 

I really don't get what you're arguing here. Flipping coins isn't a skill, it's purely luck based. Pitching is a skill and, therefore, isn't as subject to luck as flipping a coin.

 

Do you just not like xFIP?

[Northside Blues]

My point is that over the course of a season 40 pitchers may put up xFIPs under 4.00. However, not all forty of them do it every year. A lot of them are *true* 4.00-4.50 pitchers who had a good season. Instead, the next year some of the other 4.00-4.50 guys (a large percentage of the world) will have sub 4.00s to make the number still be 40ish. A much smaller number are actually consistently sub 4.00 xFIP guys. There are only 24 pitchers who have a sub 4.00 xFIP collectively the last four year (min 40 starts). There are also just 23 starters who had xFIPs below 4.00 each of the last two seasons.

 

I should also note that xFIP isn't park neutral which is a bit of a problem in the numbers above.

 

So regarding Garza, if you want to complain about him not being a sub 4.00 xFIP guy, well you're just complaining that he's not a top 25 pitcher. He's probably a #3 guy on a good team. That's not an insult.