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

[illiniguy]

I think your list should include Wood, Marshall, Wells and Theriot - depending on what your standards are for the list. I'm not entirely sure what the standard is for listing players there, but all three of those players were productive for the Cubs - very much so for Wood and Marshall. Also, if you're going to include Garcia, Alvarez and Stubbs, I think you also have to include Colvin for the Cubs. I know the feelings on the board about him, but he was still productive last season and could continue that. Also, Ankiel shouldn't be on that list if you're listing good players. He had one good season and has been mediocre to bad since then. If Ankiel makes the list, there's no reason Rich Hill shouldn't.

 

Also, I don't think it's fair to downgrade Prior. He was drafted by the Cubs, developed (for the little the team had to do) and was highly productive. Our farm system had nothing to do with his injuries.

 

There has been a pretty big lull, but with a purpose. The strategy of the MacPhail era was to focus on pitching first and foremost in the minors and fill offensive holes through free agency/trades. Much like the Braves' model. We've had the elite pitching off and on, but signing a good, but not great, player to an elite player contract (Soriano) has hurt our offense. The Lee, Aramis, Soriano moves were right in line with that strategy, but a fringe elite bat and two good bats just aren't enough to lead an offense.

 

 

I was trying to keep it at 4 guys for each team so I guess it should've been the 4 best prospects each team in the division. Wood should've been in there instead of Castro, but I was trying to mix older and newer players. Yes Cubs had other players as well, but so did other teams like Lidge for the Astros and Gallardo/Sheets for the Brewers and heck A Ram for the Pirates (if you wanna get technical about it). As far as Garcia/Alvarez/Stubbs... I really couldn't find or know anyone that should've been in the top 4 from those teams. I did the list to compare Cubs to the division rivals in terms of prospects and "elite" players from each team. If you look at that list from those 4, who looks better than the Cubs? I have to say Brewers/Astros/Cardinals look better there. Reds, IMO, are worse for now and Pirates are close behind the Cubs (due to my thinking that Alvarez will be a stud). Maybe I should've went to like top 10 "prospects to productive MLB players" for each team to "paint" a better picture of each farm system. It was also showing the Cubs "lack" of impact bat as the other teams had at least one (yes Kendall was an impact bat with the Pirates for a C IMO)... Basically in other words, I was trying to show the "cream of the crop" talent level of each farm system. As for Ankiel, yeah maybe so, but he had one good hitting and pitching season each along with good partial seasons as well. Plus after Pujols/Rasmus, I didn't know who else Cardinals developed that was really more productive than Ankiel/Garcia. I pretty sure Cubs smoked everyone in the division in terms of pitching prospect and wouldn't be surprised if they were in the top 5 in all of MLB (most likely top 10 though).

 

I wasn't downgrading Prior. I was downgrading the Cubs for the lack of an impact bat or offensive prospects. Prior was just bad luck for the Cubs. He would've won a Cy Young or two by now had he not had those injuries.

 

Thanks for telling me about MacPhail's era. I never really gone into details with the Cubs (minors/organization/scouting/etc...) until about 2002-2003 or so (when I was 18-19). I didn't know how he was really (but I should really check into that though). Didn't know MacPhail focus on pitching that much. So basically Sosa and Soriano handcuffed the team a little in terms of their contracts and with the offense. Also you said the Braves model??? I must be thinking of another team or something because they signed Maddux/trade for Smoltz and also developed Chipper Jones/Andruw Jones/Javy Lopez/Ryan Klesko/David Justice/Jermaine Dye/Rafael Furcal... Braves were like the Rays right now. They developed both pitching and hitting prospects and are great at it. I agree with your last statement except for I think if Cubs could've had Lee's 2005 season in 2007 that it would've been enough to lead an offense. You also think after that period of time (Grace to now) that you would catch "lightning in a bottle" with one offensive prospect who produced at an All Star level for a few years regardless.

Soto has had two all star caliber years.

[Splendid Splinter]

Soto has had two all star caliber years.

 

 

A few years equal 2 now? When I said a few, I meant more like 5 years... Like I said before the last post, Soto is the closest thing we had to an impact bat right now. He had 2 great years (although he was screwed one year with only like 350 PAs), but he also had a bad year as well. Also Soto was great last year, but the way Lou was screwing around with him that it almost made it feel like he wasn't a big part of that offense even when he was in the lineup (he mainly batted 7th or 8th).

[illiniguy]

Soto has had two all star caliber years.

 

 

A few years equal 2 now? When I said a few, I meant more like 5 years... Like I said before the last post, Soto is the closest thing we had to an impact bat right now. He had 2 great years (although he was screwed one year with only like 350 PAs), but he also had a bad year as well. Also Soto was great last year, but the way Lou was screwing around with him that it almost made it feel like he wasn't a big part of that offense even when he was in the lineup (he mainly batted 7th or 8th).

Oh, well there aren't a ton of guys in baseball right now who have had 5 plus years of all star performance are there?

[Tryptamine]

When you go to 5+ all-star games then you're probably getting HOF mentions as well. That seems like some pretty ridiculously lofty standards.

[Splendid Splinter]

When you go to 5+ all-star games then you're probably getting HOF mentions as well. That seems like some pretty ridiculously lofty standards.

 

Hahaha... not really. Maybe I should reword it. They don't have to the All Star games, just produced at an All Star level. So lets say 120 OPS+ or ERA+ seasons... Is that better? If you put up a 120 OPS+ or ERA+ season, you're probably playing at an All Star level.

 

Another way of looking at it could be WAR, I think 5 WAR is an all star quality (on BB ref anyway), but I think that's a little high since there's probably only around 10 players in each league who does that each year so I would go with like top 25 (basically a roster) in each league and that's probably a WAR of 4 or so.

 

If for example we went by WAR and lets say Carl Crawford, he has 3 seasons over 4 WAR (2004/2009/2010) and 1 close enough (3.9 in 2005) so he has 4 total seasons of what I would call playing at an All Star level. He has been to 4 All Stars games (don't agree with it, but no need to talk about that), but I don't think anybody is calling the HoF for Crawford. Is he too high of a standard to go by as well?

[dew1679666265]

If you look at that list from those 4, who looks better than the Cubs? I have to say Brewers/Astros/Cardinals look better there. Reds, IMO, are worse for now and Pirates are close behind the Cubs (due to my thinking that Alvarez will be a stud).

 

This isn't the best method (and may not be a good method, but it was quick and seems interesting, if nothing else), but here are the total average WAR of the four players you listed for each team:

 

Cubs: 10.3

Brewers: 11.5

Reds: 10.7

Pirates: 8.4

Astros: 16.3

Cardinals: 12.6 (8 WAR per year from Pujols)

 

So the Cubs are fifth by that method (ahead of only Pittsburgh), but basically in a tie with the Reds and only a win behind the Brewers. Consider we didn't even see the peak of Prior because of injuries (not the fault of Cub development) and one other (Castro) has only just made the majors, and it would be pretty easy to rank the Cubs ahead of the Brewers, who are all established veterans at this point and we know what their peak is/was – whereas we don't with Prior (had he stayed healthy) and Castro. Also, I'd take any of the Cubs' three over the Cardinals' three other than Pujols. You still give them credit for Pujols, but none of the others have been great to this point and Ankiel's been terrible overall.

 

I don't think the Cubs are ahead of most of the teams in the division, but I don't think they're that far behind any of them either. Z is only 29, Soto is 28 and Castro is 20 – there's still a lot of good they can do going forward.

 

As for Ankiel, yeah maybe so, but he had one good hitting and pitching season each along with good partial seasons as well. Plus after Pujols/Rasmus, I didn't know who else Cardinals developed that was really more productive than Ankiel/Garcia.

 

Their minors really haven't been very productive. Ankiel is comparable to Corey Patterson for the Cubs and, other than Pujols and Rasmus, they haven't developed much. They've been carried by Pujols (developed), Chris Carpenter (FA) and Adam Wainwright (trade) for a while now without a bunch of good production from their minors. I'd probably take the Cubs all day over the entirety of the Cardinals' system, though Pujols changes that.

 

Thanks for telling me about MacPhail's era. I never really gone into details with the Cubs (minors/organization/scouting/etc...) until about 2002-2003 or so (when I was 18-19). I didn't know how he was really (but I should really check into that though). Didn't know MacPhail focus on pitching that much. So basically Sosa and Soriano handcuffed the team a little in terms of their contracts and with the offense. Also you said the Braves model??? I must be thinking of another team or something because they signed Maddux/trade for Smoltz and also developed Chipper Jones/Andruw Jones/Javy Lopez/Ryan Klesko/David Justice/Jermaine Dye/Rafael Furcal... Braves were like the Rays right now. They developed both pitching and hitting prospects and are great at it. I agree with your last statement except for I think if Cubs could've had Lee's 2005 season in 2007 that it would've been enough to lead an offense. You also think after that period of time (Grace to now) that you would catch "lightning in a bottle" with one offensive prospect who produced at an All Star level for a few years regardless.

 

The Braves' focus was on pitching (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle, Avery, etc) and piece in offense where they could get it. They did develop some good bats (Chipper, Andruw, Javy in particular), but that wasn't their focus. Their stated organizational philosophy was focus on pitching and add in bats as needed. They did a really good job with pretty much everything through the 90s, though, so they exceeded that and developed some really good bats.

 

The Cubs' problem, I think, is they've rushed some offense players because of their weak offensive clubs and haven't given them the proper time to develop. Patterson was rushed way too fast, Pie wasn't rushed as badly but wasn't given much time to learn in the majors, for example. With the kind of players they've targeted (leaning toward raw, low patience players), they've needed to be more patient with those players and they haven't been. The way you fix that is either target more patient, developed players and/or give them more time getting to the majors and once they're here.

[Schwarber Fan]

petition to lock this thread until someone posts any news about Garza

[JWCUB]

FYI all day on ESPN 1000 Levine is saying the Cubs are still in talks with the Rays about Garza. Nothing new. Sorry

[Reaper]

Joe (Chicago: Pilsen) Are the Cubs any closer to getting Garza because I would love to see him as a Cub, if not then when will Jim decide to jost move on?

Bruce Levine Move on to where? There arent's exactly a lot of starting pitchers available through trade. Hendry will hang in there because Garza is a difference maker.

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/36264

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=GARZA19831111A

 

What am I missing?

[mookie]

I wish we had an ace. For an organization that seems to pride itself on farm grown pitching talent, where is our ace?

 

Garza is a difference maker, true. He would greatly improve our rotation, true. I am still hoping our own number one will show up soon. Maybe that kid we drafted last year in the first round that had everyone stumped will manifest into greatness.

[fromthestretch]

Garza is a difference maker, true. He would greatly improve our rotation, true.

 

How are either of those things "true"?

 

Cubs starters combined for the following stats in 2010:

 

7.3 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 8.8 H/9, 1.364 WHIP, 2.10 K/BB, 4.00 ERA

 

You're telling me that Garza will "greatly improve" that? Will the degree of improvement he offers be worth what the Cubs would have to give up to get him?

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza is a difference maker, true. He would greatly improve our rotation, true.

 

How are either of those things "true"?

 

Cubs starters combined for the following stats in 2010:

 

7.3 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 8.8 H/9, 1.364 WHIP, 2.10 K/BB, 4.00 ERA

 

You're telling me that Garza will "greatly improve" that? Will the degree of improvement he offers be worth what the Cubs would have to give up to get him?

 

If he replaces the worst performer of the bunch then yes he could improve them.

[fromthestretch]

Garza is a difference maker, true. He would greatly improve our rotation, true.

 

How are either of those things "true"?

 

Cubs starters combined for the following stats in 2010:

 

7.3 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 8.8 H/9, 1.364 WHIP, 2.10 K/BB, 4.00 ERA

 

You're telling me that Garza will "greatly improve" that? Will the degree of improvement he offers be worth what the Cubs would have to give up to get him?

 

If he replaces the worst performer of the bunch then yes he could improve them.

 

I don't doubt he would be an improvement, but I'm questioning whether he would "greatly improve" the rotation. Outside of Samardzija's three starts, no Cubs starter was really a disaster last season, so I'm not sure the improvement is worth overpaying in prospects.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't doubt he would be an improvement, but I'm questioning whether he would "greatly improve" the rotation. Outside of Samardzija's three starts, no Cubs starter was really a disaster last season, so I'm not sure the improvement is worth overpaying in prospects.

 

Well that is a vague qualifier. I think it could greatly improve the 2011 rotation, not in comparison to 2010, but in comparison to what 2011 would be without him. Is Silva going to get 25 starts this year? He could easily suffer a setback after a brief glimpse of decency this past year. Does a guy like him, as good a bet as any of them to give you 200 innings and make every start, make it easier to stretch out Cashner? Dempster, Zambrano, Garza, Wells and Cashner could be a stable rotation that actually provides some room for real upside. And then you let those other guys fill-in where needed. (Gorz/Silva/whoever). Maybe you put yourself into position to trade pitching at the deadline for much needed bats.

 

I think on his own he'd improve the rotation a fairly significant amount. When you talk about cost of prospects though, that could be negated.

[Reaper]

I don't doubt he would be an improvement, but I'm questioning whether he would "greatly improve" the rotation. Outside of Samardzija's three starts, no Cubs starter was really a disaster last season, so I'm not sure the improvement is worth overpaying in prospects.

 

Well that is a vague qualifier. I think it could greatly improve the 2011 rotation, not in comparison to 2010, but in comparison to what 2011 would be without him. Is Silva going to get 25 starts this year? He could easily suffer a setback after a brief glimpse of decency this past year. Does a guy like him, as good a bet as any of them to give you 200 innings and make every start, make it easier to stretch out Cashner? Dempster, Zambrano, Garza, Wells and Cashner could be a stable rotation that actually provides some room for real upside. And then you let those other guys fill-in where needed. (Gorz/Silva/whoever). Maybe you put yourself into position to trade pitching at the deadline for much needed bats.

 

I think on his own he'd improve the rotation a fairly significant amount. When you talk about cost of prospects though, that could be negated.

 

Garza is a 3 WARP player (in a good year). Silva put up a 2.0 last season, FWIW.

 

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

[TheDude]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

[jersey cubs fan]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

 

Incremental growth is fine if you actual consistently improve incrementally. But when you have the type of huge drop offs that Jim Hendry's Cubs have had, and don't already have impact bats or potential impact bats in the system, incremental growth is not useful. At least, it's not useful if the goal is to be really good instead of hoping to be mediocre enough.

[italianocubsfan7]

Casey Coleman, Wellington Castillo, and Hak Ju Lee for Garza. Make the deal now.

[sneakypower]

Joe (Chicago: Pilsen) Are the Cubs any closer to getting Garza because I would love to see him as a Cub, if not then when will Jim decide to jost move on?

Bruce Levine Move on to where? There arent's exactly a lot of starting pitchers available through trade. Hendry will hang in there because Garza is a difference maker.

 

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/36264

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=GARZA19831111A

 

What am I missing?

BA had him as a top-20 prospect and scouts gave him Smoltz comparisons, so you can argue elite-level talent is there

[TheDude]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

 

Incremental growth is fine if you actual consistently improve incrementally. But when you have the type of huge drop offs that Jim Hendry's Cubs have had, and don't already have impact bats or potential impact bats in the system, incremental growth is not useful. At least, it's not useful if the goal is to be really good instead of hoping to be mediocre enough.

It's a cycle. The Cubs missed the window and are now suffering the back-end contract results, putting them on the down side of the cycle. Now is the window to implement incremental growth, looking for a 10-15 win improvement over a few off-seasons. It takes luck to get that kind of win turnaround in one season, with or without a Gonzalez type of acquisition. Also, if you don't have impact prospects, then there shouldn't be any fear trading them away. No doubt Tampa wants pitching for Garza, but if you can get them off the top pitching prospects and/or onto a non-impact bat prospect, then you lose nothing.

 

Why am I not surprised that you would argue with a post that supports your argument to begin with? If analysis shows Garza is likely to be worth a 1-2 win improvement, we both pull the trigger.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why am I not surprised that you would argue with a post that supports your argument to begin with?

 

What's with the completely unnecessary dick comment? I responded to your post in a completely fair manner.

[Reaper]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

 

 

The Cubs won 75 games last season. Incremental growth?

[squally1313]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

 

 

The Cubs won 75 games last season. Incremental growth?

 

Yes incremental growth. If the Cubs right now are a true 75 win team (which, I believe they're better, but whatever) there's not a single player in baseball that would give them the improvement they needed. Pujols is the best player in baseball, and even he, at 8 WAR, is only a 5-6 win improvement at first base over DLee, and that's before even considering the king's ransom we would have to potentially give up for him or for every other elite player in baseball.

 

You make the small improvements, you let your young players grow and develop and learn what they are truly going to be, and then you make the big splash.

[dew1679666265]

If we were going to drop prospects and pay big dollars, we should have done it on an impact bat (Adrian Gonzalez). That is an impact player. Garza is a highly paid Randy Wells.

I can't stand this argument. By this definition, there are only a handful of impact players ever worth acquiring and the odds of it happening are slim, as only 1-3 such players are actually available any given off-season. By only considering such players, a team might never doing anything. If you can upgrade your wins by 1-2 with an acquisition that doesn't cost too much in prospects over the life of the contract acquired, then you do it. Incremental growth can be a formula for success without having one of the rare under 30 MVP candidates.

 

The bolded, I think, is the key part of his post. Incremental growth is fine, as is adding 1-2 win players instead of focusing on more elite players. However, if you're going to pay for a guy like he's a big improvement, he better be a big improvement.

 

Garza is likely, at best, to improve us by 3 wins (that's if we get a 0 WAR from Silva, who he'd likely replace, and that's pretty unlikely) and that isn't worth paying big in prospects and paying him $5 million in an already crowded budget.

[Guest]

It's a cycle.

 

It's only a cycle if your GM is not competent enough to keep you competitive every season when you have crazy resources like the Cubs have been able to enjoy during the back end of this decade. It's only a cycle when your GM signs players to contracts that are way too long and drag down the payroll for years to come while getting poor production from that position and others due to those bad contracts.

 

There is no reason why the Cubs can't be the favorite in the NL Central every year. I know that's a lot to imagine as a Cub fan, but we've accepted mediocrity for so long, it's hard to think differently. However, payroll has grown every year until this year and the results have not been anywhere in tune with the increase.