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

[Northside Blues]

Hendry is awful. A historically bad GM.

 

Is the trade really more than Chris Archer and a backup AAA level catcher, a potential Jason Bartlett who hasn't played above lo A, and a potential fourth outfielder? After Archer, and a certain extent Lee, the other two guys are filler. You have to give up something of value to get something of value.

[Guest]

I can't really agree with the rest in terms of the Cubs ability to compete in this division, so if that's where you stand, we'll never agree.

 

Compete in the division. That's all this move does, and I think they can do that without adding Garza. Making this trade does not assure them of finishing ahead of any of Milwaukee, Cincy or St. Louis, however. And they definitely aren't in the same league as Phily.

 

I like Garza. I just don't see a reason to trade all of that talent for him. Hendry is playing this exactly like Tampa wants him to.

[MSG T]

I have a couple of questions about this...well, they're partially about Garza and partially about the stats. I was looking at his numbers on Fangraphs, he has generally outperformed his xFIP (granted, not by a ton). First, is this something that can be looked at as anything he has control over, meaning he can continually do this, or is this something that he benefits from park, his team's fielding, etc?

 

Also, would it be considered normal for his xFIP to get better coming to the Central from the NL East?

 

Mainly I just wondering, if his xFIP is better, and he has some control over outperforming it, it makes me much less irritated by this deal. Like someone mentioned above, I'm more confident of Hendry's ability to make trades. But, this one, for now, doesn't look like a very good deal.

[wekim81]

Hendry is awful. A historically bad GM.

 

Is the trade really more than Chris Archer and a backup AAA level catcher, a potential Jason Bartlett who hasn't played above lo A, and a potential fourth outfielder? After Archer, and a certain extent Lee, the other two guys are filler. You have to give up something of value to get something of value.

Thats one way to spin it. I think Lee is gonna be a bit better than Bartlett - but even if he turns out to ONLY be Bartlett - that's still a very valuable piece. 6 team-controlled years of a starting SS with a good glove has a lot of value.

[Sammy Sofa]

One thing I usually disagree with this board on is the overreaction surrounding trading certain prospects.

 

How can you forget the mistakes of trading away future studs like Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson and Jose Ceda?

 

 

haha

 

Who was flipping out over Patterson? Where was the outcry over trading Gallagher to get Rich [expletive] Harden? Who was gnashing their teeth over Jose Ceda being a "future stud?" The criticism of that one was over trading ANYONE to get a really unremarkable at best closer. The general attitude towards Ceda is that he was cheap and under the Cubs' control for a while and could be effective if he was able to keep his weight under control.

 

So, in other words...what the [expletive] are you two giggling about? You do get why people would prefer giving up Lee or Archer as opposed to both, right?

 

I think Garza is good, but he's not likely to be a real gamechanger for a team that was already pretty good pitching-wise. If you're going to give up two really highly rated and regarded prospects for one player it should be for someone who's more of a lock to be a real impact on the team's ability to compete.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Little Slide Rooter]

WTF, sure, Garzas a great pitcher, but far from an ace. The Rays are getting as comparable if not better package to the ones that landed Peavy, Greinke, and Holliday and were getting a solid number #2 starter. There better be something else in it for us if were giving up 4 of our top prospects, including 2 in the top 5. Say what you will, but It makes me sick, and we can no longer say at least Hendrys good at trades.

[David]

So how much better does Garza figure to be getting to face a bunch of crappy NL Central teams as opposed to a bunch of awesome AL East teams, plus one automatic out every 9 hitters?

[wekim81]

One thing I usually disagree with this board on is the overreaction surrounding trading certain prospects.

 

How can you forget the mistakes of trading away future studs like Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson and Jose Ceda?

 

 

haha

 

Who was flipping out over Patterson? Where was the outcry over trading Gallagher to get Rich [expletive] Harden? Who was gnashing their teeth over Jose Ceda being a "future stud?" The criticism of that one was over trading ANYONE to get a really unremarkable at best closer. The general attitude towards Ceda is that he was cheap and under the Cubs' control for a while and could be effective if he was able to keep his weight under control.

 

So, in other words...what the [expletive] are you two giggling about? You do get why people would prefer giving up Lee or Archer as opposed to both, right?

exactly. I was never upset about trading any of those guys. I was more upset about us trading for/handing the closer's role to Gregg than whoever the heck we gave up.

[Tyrant]

I can't really agree with the rest in terms of the Cubs ability to compete in this division, so if that's where you stand, we'll never agree.

 

Compete in the division. That's all this move does, and I think they can do that without adding Garza. Making this trade does not assure them of finishing ahead of any of Milwaukee, Cincy or St. Louis, however. And they definitely aren't in the same league as Phily.

 

No, they're not in the same league as Philly at all. But that's not really the point. All they need to do is finish ahead of the other NL Central teams, none of which are locks to be great. That gets them into the postseason, which we all know is a big crapshoot.

[Sammy Sofa]

So how much better does Garza figure to be getting to face a bunch of crappy NL Central teams as opposed to a bunch of awesome AL East teams, plus one automatic out every 9 hitters?

 

And by "bunch of awesome AL teams" you mean two?

Edited January 7, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

The Cub Reporter just tweeted:

 

Levine says up to 8 players could be in involved in Garza/#Cubs deal

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cub Reporter just tweeted:

 

Levine says up to 8 players could be in involved in Garza/#Cubs deal

 

OK, let's see who else is coming back.

[Post Count Padder]

You gotta be kidding me.

 

I don't care about Chirinos or Guyer. But I would've liked to hold onto Lee and Archer. I'm more annoyed at seeing Archer included. I hope Garza doesn't have a bad year. How long is he under team control? Anyone know?

[Guest]

I hope Garza doesn't have a bad year. How long is he under team control? Anyone know?

 

Through 2013, he has 3 arbitration years that he has no contract for yet.

[JonJayCutler]

I would like to trade for a new GM.

[Post Count Padder]

The Cub Reporter just tweeted:

 

Levine says up to 8 players could be in involved in Garza/#Cubs deal

That changes things. I don't mind giving up the package we're giving up if TB is sending us some interesting prospects back, too.

[David]

One thing I usually disagree with this board on is the overreaction surrounding trading certain prospects.

 

How can you forget the mistakes of trading away future studs like Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson and Jose Ceda?

 

 

haha

 

Who was flipping out over Patterson? Where was the outcry over trading Gallagher to get Rich [expletive] Harden? Who was gnashing their teeth over Jose Ceda being a "future stud?" The criticism of that one was over trading ANYONE to get a really unremarkable at best closer. The general attitude towards Ceda is that he was cheap and under the Cubs' control for a while and could be effective if he was able to keep his weight under control.

 

So, in other words...what the [expletive] are you two giggling about? You do get why people would prefer giving up Lee or Archer as opposed to both, right?

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Ceda resulted in a decent amount of bitching. The other two? Nobody really remotely smart (thus, important) cared about giving them up, but, if I had to guess, there were probably one or two morons bent out of shape about it.

 

Obviously, I understand why people would prefer giving up Lee or Archer as opposed to both (although, I don't even see why it boils down to that because Archer actually might be good and Lee, ehhh?). But that's not what's going on here. There are people freaking out, calling this an awful trade and using it as some blatant example of Hendry's ineptitude. I don't feel it's anywhere even close to that.

[rocket]

You gotta be kidding me.

 

I don't care about Chirinos or Guyer. But I would've liked to hold onto Lee and Archer. I'm more annoyed at seeing Archer included. I hope Garza doesn't have a bad year. How long is he under team control? Anyone know?

 

3 years.

 

i won't freak out until the trade is official. it's very common that the minor league players that writers speculate are going end up being wrong.

[davell]

Geez. I really think Garza can be a lot better in the NL and am all for getting him. But, if Archer is in this deal, I'm going to throw up. Not what I was expecting, not in the slightest. I don't expect much from Hendry, but the one thing we could usually count on were trades. If Archer is involved and we are NOT getting back a very solid Tampa prospect in return, then this deal is awful.

[David]

So how much better does Garza figure to be getting to face a bunch of crappy NL Central teams as opposed to a bunch of awesome AL East teams, plus one automatic out every 9 hitters?

 

And by "bunch of awesome AL teams" you mean two?

 

Divisions aren't all that big. Sue me for generalizing 2 really really freaking good lineups as "a bunch."

 

Would you prefer "a bunch of awesome hitters?"

 

Or is that leaving the standard for awesome too low? Let's really dissect this.

Edited January 7, 2011 by David

[Guest]

The Cub Reporter just tweeted:

 

Levine says up to 8 players could be in involved in Garza/#Cubs deal

 

Hendry had to sweeten the pot even more. Haha.

[DonnieD]

So how much better does Garza figure to be getting to face a bunch of crappy NL Central teams as opposed to a bunch of awesome AL East teams, plus one automatic out every 9 hitters?

 

And by "bunch of awesome AL teams" you mean two?

 

I think the last couple of Blue Jays offenses are in the team picture for "awesome"

[Banedon]

Gordon Wittenmyer needs to get an apology from all the other reporters in town that essentially said he was full of it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Ceda resulted in a decent amount of bitching.

 

Yeah, for the reasons I talked about. It wasn't in the sense of "OH MY GOD, CEDA IS GOING TO BE AMAZING." It was frustration over why they were trading ANYONE to get someone like Kevin Gregg.

 

Obviously, I understand why people would prefer giving up Lee or Archer as opposed to both (although, I don't even see why it boils down to that because Archer actually might be good and Lee, ehhh?).

 

I'm angry about Lee going not out of expectations for what he can do for the Cubs as a player but rather as what he can net as a prospect. Again, he's very highly regarded around baseball, and I don't think it's a stretch to think he could have been used in a package at some point to get a player better than Garza.

[Guancous]

We better be getting McGee back too

 

Or Hellickson. Or Wade Davis.