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

[dew1679666265]

Keith Law reaction to the trade.

 

He loves it for the Rays, but it's an insider article, so I can't read far enough to see what he thinks of it for the Cubs.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The problem with judging prospect based trades is that you should judge it by the prospects status, you cant look into the future. Say Garza becomes a stud, and the Cubs win the world series, and none of the prospects really pan out. This will look like a great trade. On the other hand, say Garza becomes an OK 2-3 starter, and the prospects hit their ceilings. Then it looks like a bad trade. We cant look back at the trade several years from now and judge the trade that way, because its really not wither GMs fault. Really what Im trying to say is that hindsight is 20/20. When a GM trades a stud prospect and they become a star, thats looked back on as a bad trade. When the prospect doesnt pan out, its viewed as either a good trade or completely forgotten, depending on what they got in return.

[Little Slide Rooter]

For what its worth, the folks at Brewerfan seem to think we got a pretty good deal.

 

http://brewersfandemonium.yuku.com/topic/24025/Garza-traded---Cubs-Archer-Guyer-Chirinos-Lee-Fuld--Tampa?page=2

 

Heres my favorite snippit

 

I think that Garza's a very good pitcher, but this smacks of the Cubs trading for Harden after the Brewers got C.C. Simply put, Greinke>Garza. Hopefully they got fleeced out of some good prospects here (though it seems they never do).

Edited January 7, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[BleacherBadger]

Keith Law reaction to the trade.

 

He loves it for the Rays, but it's an insider article, so I can't read far enough to see what he thinks of it for the Cubs.

 

illegal information

 

The parameters of the deal that ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine reported have Matt Garza headed to the Cubs in exchange for pitcher Chris Archer, outfielder Brandon Guyer, catcher Robinson Chirinos, shortstop Hak-Ju Lee and outfielder Sam Fuld. Minor league outfielder Fernando Perez will also head to Chicago with Garza.

 

[+] EnlargeMatt Garza

Kim Klement/US PresswireGarza is a prize, and the Cubs paid like it.

 

Immediate reaction: Starting with the prospects, I love this trade for Tampa Bay. They got more for Garza than Kansas City did for Zack Greinke, although their package of players is, collectively, further away than what the Royals got. It looks to me like the Rays focused less on position and more on overall value.

 

Hak-Ju is the star of the deal for the Rays, a potential monster at shortstop who can run and throw and shows good feel for the strike zone. He performed very well as a 19-year-old in full-season ball and should remain at shortstop long-term because of his athleticism and feel for the position. He's a potential four-tool player who will probably top out with just average power; even though he should be fairly big for a shortstop by the time he fills out, it's not a swing path that's going to generate a lot of long fly balls, but he should hit for average and get on base while adding value through baserunning and defense. He was the No. 1 prospect in the Cubs' system for me.

 

Archer was originally in the Cleveland system and went to the Cubs in the Mark Derosa trade; at the time, he was all arm strength with little command, but has made huge strides in that area. He'll pitch at 93-95 MPH and despite a high slot, he throws an above-average slider that has missed bats in the minor leagues. His changeup remains a fringe-average pitch but there's enough there to think he'll stick as a three-pitch starter, with the absolute worst case scenario of an impact reliever if for some reason the command stops improving.

 

The remaining players are all interesting pieces, none good enough to headline a deal but all worthwhile as extra parts.

 

Brandon Guyer is a plus runner and defender in centerfield with good bat-to-ball skills but poor plate discipline; he mashed as a 24-year-old repeating Double-A, so he may be overrated on performance, but the tools are there for him to at least be a second-division regular because of the glove and speed.

 

Chirinos is a recent convert to catching -- 2010 was the first year he played nowhere but behind the dish -- and projects to stay behind the plate; his offense the last two years has been inflated by his age relative to league, but the standard at catcher is so low that it seems hard to believe he can't be a starter for someone in the majors. Sam Fuld is a fourth/fifth outfielder who is never going to hit like he did in 2009 again, but has value on the bench and as a late-game OBP weapon against a right-handed reliever.

 

For the Cubs, it's pretty clear the trade makes the team better. Garza isn't an ace, but he has ace stuff, and taking him for the AL East -- he's notoriously been a Boston killer -- and plugging him into the weaker NL Central should improve his numbers across the board. I've seen him hit 97 in the 7th inning, and seeing the NL-version of 8-9 hitters won't lessen his chances to go deep into games. The Cubs rotation becomes really heavy on right-handed power stuff, and is better set to compete with the other starting staffs in the division, with the perpetual mystery of Carlos Zambrano always a huge piece of that equation. But at least now, any implosion from Big Z won't completely compromise the season.

 

The other positive here is the chance for the Cubs to let young Andrew Cashner work out of the bullpen. If Cashner is in the pen, they could have a pretty unbelievable group of power arms, and could have a lot of six-inning games.

 

Cubs fans will enjoy what Garza can offer, but this came at a huge cost.

 

The other big winner here is the Music Man, Jeremy Hellickson, who now seems guaranteed a spot in the Tampa rotation. Once there, he could contend for Rookie of the Year, so don't weep for the Rays.

[ELCABALLO45]

I am not as caught up on the Cubs system as I used to be. But considering the Brewers gave up its #1 prospect for Shaun Marcum. You had to figure the price was going to be high for Garza. (Even though Marcum was better last year).

[David]

 

The other positive here is the chance for the Cubs to let young Andrew Cashner work out of the bullpen. If Cashner is in the pen, they could have a pretty unbelievable group of power arms, and could have a lot of six-inning games.

 

 

lol keith law

[Guest]

There was definitely an uproar here when Choi was traded for Lee. I was one of them.

 

I think most arguments were that it was a waste to spend big money on Lee when you could get similar production from Choi for league minimum. There were really good players available via free agency/trade that year and we were well stocked with minor leaguers, and and expensive Lee was not enough return of giving up Choi.

 

The Marlins were desperate to move Lee and his contract and there were several teams that weren't impressed with Lee enough to want his contract or the players that it would require in return. I distinctly remember the Orioles haggled with the Marlins for the longest time before finally giving up. I believe the case with Lee is that the Marlins wanted to trade Lee, not as a salary dump, to free up payroll, while everyone else viewed Lee as a salary dump, but weren't willing to give up talent while taking on payroll. Hendry obliged and actually won that deal, as Lee went on to have some of his best seasons with the Cubs.

 

Also, Hendry seemed like he had a torch for players with World Series rings, as he was courting several players with the Marlins that year.

[davell]

Yeah, I usually respect what Law says, but Cashner out of the pen is a positive for the Cubs? That's laughable. It's also not appearing to be true either.

[Exile on Waveland]

I still think that Garza's potential for breakout (given his stuff) and his age and years left are being undervalued by some.

 

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

[CUBZ99]

Kudos to Wittenmeyer(sp?) for getting the scoop on this one.

 

I like the fact that the Cubs acquired Garza, and think that he could really bolster the front end of the rotation. I'm not real thrilled about the price they had to pay to get him, but it could have been worse.

 

It is good to see the Pacific Rim scouting and signings paying some dividends with Lee being one of the key pieces of this deal. I have recently been defending Lee's prospect ranking, as compared with Lake and still think he will be better than Lake, but he still has a long ways to go prior to becoming a valuable part of a major league team.

 

In regard to Archer, my guess is that the Cubs felt that he was not going to be a dominant top of the rotation starter and figured his ceiling was no more than Garza's.

 

Although I think Guyer could be good, I'm not going to lose any sleep over him, Chirinos and Fuld being included.

 

I think it was a decent trade by Hendry, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. One thing is certain, we will see if the Ricketts were serious about putting money into the farm system, because they are going to need replinish the talent lost.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

I do not mind this trade, it does spark excitement for this season however there are a couple things that bother me about this trade.

 

1: Losing Archer

2: Most likely putting Cashner in the pen

3: Koyie Hill will back up while Castillo sticks @ AAA.

 

Archer hurts to lose and the organization has lost some depth for sure, however they have decent draft position this season and could gain some supplemental picks following this year if Demp opts out and Pena bounces back. I think Cashner needs to be given every shot at the 5th spot, the Cubs did not seemed to be worried about LHP they want the best pitchers in their rotation. Hill should have no spot on this team and the fact this improves his chances makes me nautious.

 

 

Maybe I am biased but I think Garza, Demp and Z is a much better 1-2-3 than people will give them credit for on a national level. I also believe Wells benefits from this as he will match up versus a lot of back of the end startes in the NL central (which most of the NL central rotations lack depth). The Cubs rotation is the deepest in the NL Central and if the Cardinals / Reds do not get repeat performaces from players like Arroyo amd Jaime Garcia than this will push the Cubs right into contention.

 

The non related factor is the offense, the rotation will be better but this entire teams' success relys on Ramirez and Pena bouncing back atleast to their career averages. I like the bullpen and I would look into Gorz for O'Day (something along those lines) just to keep Cashner in the rotation.

[9YRPLAN]

if healthy, our rotation is going to eat up some major innings this year.

[rawaction]

if healthy, our rotation is going to eat up some major innings this year.

 

Can't you say that about every team? Because isn't the main reason a rotation doesn't eat up innings is health?

[CubsWin]

My heart sank when I heard that Archer and Lee were included in the deal. The fact of the matter is that Garza is being traded because the Rays have prospects knocking on the door in Hellickson and Garza is about to get expensive. This is a salary dump. Hendry failed to call their bluff and the Cubs will likely pay the price for years to come. They may not. Garza might become an ace after moving from the AL East to the NL Central and Archer might not pan out. It's not an absolute lock that this is a terrible trade, but as of right now, I'm disheartened.

[Radar3454]

The problem with judging prospect based trades is that you should judge it by the prospects status, you cant look into the future. Say Garza becomes a stud, and the Cubs win the world series, and none of the prospects really pan out. This will look like a great trade. On the other hand, say Garza becomes an OK 2-3 starter, and the prospects hit their ceilings. Then it looks like a bad trade. We cant look back at the trade several years from now and judge the trade that way, because its really not wither GMs fault. Really what Im trying to say is that hindsight is 20/20. When a GM trades a stud prospect and they become a star, thats looked back on as a bad trade. When the prospect doesnt pan out, its viewed as either a good trade or completely forgotten, depending on what they got in return.

 

To me you have to see how it works out. This is a trade you make it you are planning to win NOW - if you don't it is a bad trade.

[dew1679666265]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

[dew1679666265]

My heart sank when I heard that Archer and Lee were included in the deal. The fact of the matter is that Garza is being traded because the Rays have prospects knocking on the door in Hellickson and Garza is about to get expensive. This is a salary dump. Hendry failed to call their bluff and the Cubs will likely pay the price for years to come. They may not. Garza might become an ace after moving from the AL East to the NL Central and Archer might not pan out. It's not an absolute lock that this is a terrible trade, but as of right now, I'm disheartened.

 

I knew Lee would be in the deal from the sound of it, but was really disappointed to see Archer in it. I just hope the Hendry scouting eye is good here, because if not we really overpaid for a more expensive, slightly better Randy Wells.

[9YRPLAN]

if healthy, our rotation is going to eat up some major innings this year.

 

Can't you say that about every team? Because isn't the main reason a rotation doesn't eat up innings is health?

 

yes...but our guys all have a good track record of it. it wasnt so much an "if we can stay healthy" but more of a "if history has shown us anything"

[rawaction]

if healthy, our rotation is going to eat up some major innings this year.

 

Can't you say that about every team? Because isn't the main reason a rotation doesn't eat up innings is health?

 

yes...but our guys all have a good track record of it. it wasnt so much an "if we can stay healthy" but more of a "if history has shown us anything"

 

I knew what you meant. Just messing with you.

[UK1679666180]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

 

Dew, I think you're overrating xFIP given Garza's ability to outperform it on an annual basis. Similar to when a hitter typically hits for a high BABIP, after awhile it becomes the norm. Minus HRs, he'll improve his stats.

[Productive Outs]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

 

Dew, I think you're overrating xFIP given Garza's ability to outperform it on an annual basis. Similar to when a hitter typically hits for a high BABIP, after awhile it becomes the norm. Minus HRs, he'll improve his stats.

 

how can we be sure that Garza outperforming his xFIP wasn't due to Tampa Bay's super awesome defense?

[Keener98]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

 

Dew, I think you're overrating xFIP given Garza's ability to outperform it on an annual basis. Similar to when a hitter typically hits for a high BABIP, after awhile it becomes the norm. Minus HRs, he'll improve his stats.

Agreed. And like Fangraphs said if a guy consistenly outperforms his xFIP 3 years in a row, sooner or later you have to credit it as a skill for that pitcher.

[ScrubMD]

someone break down the prospecty-ness of the people we gave up.

 

 

We gave up an Ichiro, a right-handed Dontrelle Willis, a Bengie Molina, and a guy that will be great for team chemistry and plays the right way.

 

Chris Archer is black?

 

Definitely too black to be compared to a white pitcher.

[KingCubsFan]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

 

Dew, I think you're overrating xFIP given Garza's ability to outperform it on an annual basis. Similar to when a hitter typically hits for a high BABIP, after awhile it becomes the norm. Minus HRs, he'll improve his stats.

 

how can we be sure that Garza outperforming his xFIP wasn't due to Tampa Bay's super awesome defense?

Does every pitcher on Tampa Bay consistently outperform their xFIP?

[Keener98]

I think Garza's potential is being seriously undervalued on here by many/most. It's not that often you can trade for a pitcher of his age and talent (plus the AL East to NL Central move).

 

As for the deal, the Cubs gave up a lot (probably more in volume than anything though). So I understand that part of the disagreement with the trade -- though this basically happens on every board for every team when prospects are traded -- but that doesn't mean Garza doesn't have some serious potential.

 

I'm not for sure, I'm not a minor league expert, but I think I probably would have made this trade.

 

The biggest problem I have with this trade, as I said earlier, is that Garza pretty much has to reach that potential for this trade to make sense. We didn't have a need in the rotation and Garza hasn't been a top of the rotation pitcher to this point. He'll cost upward of $5-6 mil this year and more after that.

 

His xFIP doesn't indicate a pitcher on the verge of being a top of the rotation pitcher, but he'll have to be to keep us from having overpaid. And if I'm trading primarily for potential, overpaying doesn't make sense.

 

Dew, I think you're overrating xFIP given Garza's ability to outperform it on an annual basis. Similar to when a hitter typically hits for a high BABIP, after awhile it becomes the norm. Minus HRs, he'll improve his stats.

 

how can we be sure that Garza outperforming his xFIP wasn't due to Tampa Bay's super awesome defense?

Garza allowed the 6th most flyballs in the Majors I believe last year not sure how much defense can be accredited to his numbers given that.