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

[dew1679666265]

Pena hit under .200 last year and is facing pitchers he's never seen before as he changes leagues.

 

And even with that miserable average, he managed a .732 OPS and 1.0 WAR. Assuming his BABIP improves (it almost certainly should), there's really no reason to think he won't get his numbers back to where they were in 2008 or 2009. The "hit under .200" thing doesn't mean much when his IsoP and IsoD were so good.

 

Fukudome has been the red headed step child.

 

And has still been pretty productive. He's only a question mark if the Cubs feel the need to move him, which could be said about any player.

 

The Cubs have plenty of questions, but Fukudome shouldn't be one of them and Pena is one of the most likely to be answered in the affirmative.

[dew1679666265]

In trading Archer, though, we eliminated the possible upside he had of being an ace at minimal cost for a guy who might still have ace potential, but who we're paying $5-6+ million to. If he doesn't continue to outpitch his xFIP, then he'll be overpaid pretty quickly. For Garza to be worth the cost both in money and prospects, he'll have to pitch at least as well as his ERA/WHIP indicated in Tampa, if not better, and continue to outpitch his peripherals (or improve them). That's a steep hope.

Exactly. And the Cubs will only be paying Garza $5-6 million for this coming season with the likelihood of it going up into 10 million and higher for the following two seasons.

 

Yeah, as I've said for this trade to make sense Garza has to continue his production from Tampa at a minimum and probably improve upon it.

[CubsWin]

In trading Archer, though, we eliminated the possible upside he had of being an ace at minimal cost for a guy who might still have ace potential, but who we're paying $5-6+ million to. If he doesn't continue to outpitch his xFIP, then he'll be overpaid pretty quickly. For Garza to be worth the cost both in money and prospects, he'll have to pitch at least as well as his ERA/WHIP indicated in Tampa, if not better, and continue to outpitch his peripherals (or improve them). That's a steep hope.

Exactly. And the Cubs will only be paying Garza $5-6 million for this coming season with the likelihood of it going up into 10 million and higher for the following two seasons.

 

Yeah, as I've said for this trade to make sense Garza has to continue his production from Tampa at a minimum and probably improve upon it.

Yeah, that's what I've come to in my analysis so far as well.

[TruffleShuffle]

please tell me this is a joke.

[CubsWin]

please tell me this is a joke.

Nope, it's very real unless someone fails their physical. Sorry.

[TruffleShuffle]

in that case someone needs to find matt garza and bash him in the elbow with a tire iron.

[CUBZ99]

One thing I'm really liking about this trade is that the rotation is improved. If Garza had been on the Cubs last year he would have posted the lowest WHIP on the team, and his numbers in the AL East were pretty good.

 

I don't buy the Wells is equal or better than Garza argument, but even if I did, Garza is definitely better than any other #4 option the Cubs had for next year. Some other GM's would have used the approx $6MM that the Cubs are going to spend on Garza to get a Marquis/Garland type of pitcher. There is no doubt that Garza has way more upside than that type of pitcher and will likely perform better.

 

As the rotation stands, Z, Dempster, Garza, Wells, and Cashner/Shark/Gorz/Silva... it is a pretty damn good rotation.

[muntjack]

In trading Archer, though, we eliminated the possible upside he had of being an ace at minimal cost for a guy who might still have ace potential, but who we're paying $5-6+ million to. If he doesn't continue to outpitch his xFIP, then he'll be overpaid pretty quickly. For Garza to be worth the cost both in money and prospects, he'll have to pitch at least as well as his ERA/WHIP indicated in Tampa, if not better, and continue to outpitch his peripherals (or improve them). That's a steep hope.

Exactly. And the Cubs will only be paying Garza $5-6 million for this coming season with the likelihood of it going up into 10 million and higher for the following two seasons.

 

Yeah, as I've said for this trade to make sense Garza has to continue his production from Tampa at a minimum and probably improve upon it.

 

I would feel that way if the trade was for Archer alone. There is a small chance Chirinos or Guyer goes Casey McGehee and a better chance that Lee's bat develops. If one of those things happen, the trade becomes pretty lopsided even if Garza keeps outpitching his xFIP.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't much like losing Lee, but the only one on the list who makes me cringe is Archer. Guyer, Fuld and Chirinos are filler.

 

Still, this makes the staff appreciably better for the next few years.

 

Also, don't forget Pena had plantar faciitis most of last year. I predict some measure of improvement on that alone.

[DivineBovine]

I'm usually the guy who's OK with trading prospects. But this trade worries me.

 

We could've sat back this year and built up our farm system and waited for it to mature. We could've also spent some money to acquire players to build the team. We did neither. We gutted our farm system and have made every effort to spend as little as possible.

 

I'm concerned as to what it could mean in the future with the Ricketts.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm usually the guy who's OK with trading prospects. But this trade worries me.

 

We could've sat back this year and built up our farm system and waited for it to mature. We could've also spent some money to acquire players to build the team. We did neither. We gutted our farm system and have made every effort to spend as little as possible.

 

I'm concerned as to what it could mean in the future with the Ricketts.

 

The system isn't gutted by any means. Archer and Lee were the only two prospects of significance, and Lee is a long way away.

[chopsx9]

In trading Archer, though, we eliminated the possible upside he had of being an ace at minimal cost for a guy who might still have ace potential, but who we're paying $5-6+ million to. If he doesn't continue to outpitch his xFIP, then he'll be overpaid pretty quickly. For Garza to be worth the cost both in money and prospects, he'll have to pitch at least as well as his ERA/WHIP indicated in Tampa, if not better, and continue to outpitch his peripherals (or improve them). That's a steep hope.

Exactly. And the Cubs will only be paying Garza $5-6 million for this coming season with the likelihood of it going up into 10 million and higher for the following two seasons.

 

Yeah, as I've said for this trade to make sense Garza has to continue his production from Tampa at a minimum and probably improve upon it.

 

Not to be an ass or anything but...what other possibilities are there? Isn't that the belief/assumption/hope of any trade that isn't the dump of a bad contract? Nobody trades for a player thinking if he stagnates and gets worse its all good anyway.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I like this deal. I wasn't too high on anybody that we gave away so I think it's a hard deal to hate.

 

I think we're gonna see the Cubs surprise a lot of people this year. They may not be great, but they have enough talent on the roster to contend for the playoffs IF they can get decent years out of a few key people, especially on the offensive end. We have depth in the bullpen for the first time in quite awhile. The Cubs suddenly look like a fairly well-rounded team, IMHO.

[Guest]

We didn't "gut" our farm system. We traded two guys who will be backups if everything goes right and are overrated by the BA's of the world right now. We also traded a very good pitching prospect who profiles similarly to several guys already in the system, with very good stuff, but uncertainty if he'll be a 2/3 starter or a bullpen arm(others in this mold include Cashner, Carpenter, even Jay Jackson). And lastly we traded the highest risk prospect from our position of greatest depth in the organization. We're an organization that is long on guys who will be 20th-25th men on MLB rosters, intriguing but flawed arms, and SS. And we traded from each of these to get a 3 win SP that we control for 3 years through his prime at a reasonable cost.

 

If you want to say that it was too much to give up, there's certainly an argument for that. But to claim that Hendry got robbed here is either overselling the prospects involved, underselling Garza, or both. Odds are slim that Hendry doesn't come out ahead on this deal in hindsight. And even if you think the prospects involved had more value, all 4 are at their highest value ever, so unless there's another feasible trade target that would've been preferred, that value wasn't going to be realized as time progresses and people realize Chirinos/Guyer aren't so great, Archer can't figure out his control, and Lee continues to only hit singles.

[TruffleShuffle]

We didn't "gut" our farm system. We traded two guys who will be backups if everything goes right and are overrated by the BA's of the world right now. We also traded a very good pitching prospect who profiles similarly to several guys already in the system, with very good stuff, but uncertainty if he'll be a 2/3 starter or a bullpen arm(others in this mold include Cashner, Carpenter, even Jay Jackson). And lastly we traded the highest risk prospect from our position of greatest depth in the organization. We're an organization that is long on guys who will be 20th-25th men on MLB rosters, intriguing but flawed arms, and SS. And we traded from each of these to get a 3 win SP that we control for 3 years through his prime at a reasonable cost.

 

we are long on SS? we have starlin castro, who was one of the worst defensive SS in baseball last year, darwin barney, who is in no way a starting SS, and then what? junior lake probably can't play SS now and definitely won't be able to when he fills out. logan watkins could play marginal SS but he can't hit much.

[dew1679666265]

Not to be an ass or anything but...what other possibilities are there? Isn't that the belief/assumption/hope of any trade that isn't the dump of a bad contract? Nobody trades for a player thinking if he stagnates and gets worse its all good anyway.

 

When you trade for a guy with questions, the expectation is that those questions knock his value down some and, thus, you give up less in prospects. However, by dealing two of their top five prospects, the Cubs paid full price for Garza. By trading Archer and Lee in the same deal, I would have hoped the return would have been a player I was confident would be a significant difference maker to the team for the present and future. Not a guy who has performed much better than his peripherals indicate, is about to get a whole lot more expensive and could just as easily regress to his peripherals as improve to the #1/2 starter Hendry and others hope he could be.

 

Had we given up less in the trade, Garza could have come over, regressed a bit to his peripherals and the Cubs still would have come out ok in the deal. However, we paid for the potential Garza possesses, so to make the deal make sense, he must fulfill that potential. I would have cut off negotiations at Lee/Guyer/Chirinos/Fuld/one more prospect the level of Lee (high ceiling, but a long way away). That way we're still giving up good pieces, but if Garza quits outpitching his peripherals we didn't give up so much that we end up losing the deal. If that wasn't enough to make the deal happen, then move on elsewhere or don't add another starter at all. We didn't need another starter anyway.

 

To summarize: The more you invest in a player, the more important it is that player produces at the highest level possible. The Cubs invested a lot in Garza, so it's that much more important that he continue to outpitch his peripherals (or improve them).

[TruffleShuffle]

plus it's all well and good that he's a 3 win pitcher, but what's gorzelanny on average, maybe a 1.5 win pitcher? nobody really knows what cashner, jackson, carpenter, archer would be. so we're upgrading by probably a win or two by acquiring garza, but then again for that extra win or two you're also paying significantly more money. i'm fine with garza but not fine with trading three of our top 10 prospects to a small market team for what will probably amount to a small upgrade for an average team.

[Guest]

We didn't "gut" our farm system. We traded two guys who will be backups if everything goes right and are overrated by the BA's of the world right now. We also traded a very good pitching prospect who profiles similarly to several guys already in the system, with very good stuff, but uncertainty if he'll be a 2/3 starter or a bullpen arm(others in this mold include Cashner, Carpenter, even Jay Jackson). And lastly we traded the highest risk prospect from our position of greatest depth in the organization. We're an organization that is long on guys who will be 20th-25th men on MLB rosters, intriguing but flawed arms, and SS. And we traded from each of these to get a 3 win SP that we control for 3 years through his prime at a reasonable cost.

 

we are long on SS? we have starlin castro, who was one of the worst defensive SS in baseball last year, darwin barney, who is in no way a starting SS, and then what? junior lake probably can't play SS now and definitely won't be able to when he fills out. logan watkins could play marginal SS but he can't hit much.

 

That's how you're going to classify Castro? Really?

 

Castro is there for the next 5 years. We also have Lake, Flaherty, Lemahieu, Barney, and Watkins who are capable at SS and have spent time in the Top 30. None of them have Lee's upside, but most of them are more certain to have some level of MLB impact than him too. It's absolutely the greatest position of the strength in the system.

[TruffleShuffle]

That's how you're going to classify Castro? Really?

 

so your argument is that he was not one of the worst defensive SS in the major leagues last year? he'll probably improve, but he may not be better than average, and if that happens then i'd like to have a very good defensive SS like lee in the pipeline.

 

Castro is there for the next 5 years. We also have Lake, Flaherty, Lemahieu, Barney, and Watkins who are capable at SS and have spent time in the Top 30. None of them have Lee's upside, but most of them are more certain to have some level of MLB impact than him too. It's absolutely the greatest position of the strength in the system.

 

barney is the only one there who could play above average SS defensively, and he can't hit. the rest would vary from below average to horrific with the glove there, and they all have significant questions about their ability to hit at the major league level.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm usually the guy who's OK with trading prospects. But this trade worries me.

 

We could've sat back this year and built up our farm system and waited for it to mature. We could've also spent some money to acquire players to build the team. We did neither. We gutted our farm system and have made every effort to spend as little as possible.

 

I'm concerned as to what it could mean in the future with the Ricketts.

 

While I don't think we necessarily gutted our system, I've been leaning towards this position today. I like Garza but that's quite a bit of decent prospects to give up. And, like you, I usually don't really have a problem with trading prospects either.

 

I really don't know what the hell Hendry's trying to do this year.

[Guest]

That's how you're going to classify Castro? Really?

 

so your argument is that he was not one of the worst defensive SS in the major leagues last year? he'll probably improve, but he may not be better than average, and if that happens then i'd like to have a very good defensive SS like lee in the pipeline.

 

You realize you can say the same thing about Lee's performance in Peoria, right? He has 61 errors in 179 career games.

[dew1679666265]

I really don't know what the hell Hendry's trying to do this year.

 

I've made the comment previously that I'm going to trust Hendry on this one even though I don't like the trade at the moment and have argued pretty strongly against it. I really think (maybe hope, I'm not sure) he's seen something with Garza that makes him think he's a good bet to really improve. It's a gamble, and one I don't think we should have taken with the information I have, but I just hope with how hard Hendry pursued Garza, that he saw something there he really likes. There's no reputation at work here, no situational obsession (he's not a lefty, not a speedy leadoff hitter, etc). So maybe Hendry and his scouts truly believe he's bordering on a breakout.

[TruffleShuffle]

That's how you're going to classify Castro? Really?

 

so your argument is that he was not one of the worst defensive SS in the major leagues last year? he'll probably improve, but he may not be better than average, and if that happens then i'd like to have a very good defensive SS like lee in the pipeline.

 

You realize you can say the same thing about Lee's performance in Peoria, right? He has 61 errors in 179 career games.

 

i'll take the scouts' word for it.

 

since you're of the opinion that dealing lee is no big deal because SS is the cubs' greatest strength, let's look at this from the rays' perspective. what is their greatest strength? starting pitching. they have shields (under contract at bargain prices through 2014), price (under contract through 2012), davis (just completed his rookie year), sonnanstine (cheap but probably not in their long term plans), hellickson (future #2), niemann (just completed second year), matt moore and others. perhaps their greatest weakness as an organization is their capacity to spend money. they lose almost nothing by shuffling garza out of the rotation and plugging in hellickson. instead they don't have to worry about paying garza $5-10M a year during the next three years, which should help them keep some of their talented young players as they move through their arbitration years. so why on earth was it necessary to give them three of our top 10 prospects for a pitcher they didn't really need to get an upgrade of a win or two at several million dollars over the next three years?

[Guest]

i'll take the scouts' word for it.

 

But you won't take the scouts' word on Castro?

 

so why on earth was it necessary to give them three of our top 10 prospects for a pitcher they didn't really need to get an upgrade of a win or two at several million dollars over the next three years?

 

Because Garza is still underpaid even through his arbitration years, and there's plenty of teams that would take him if the player cost was low enough.

 

Also, since you're stuck on the fact that Gorzelanny has value that's mitigating Garza's impact, you have to acknowledge that Gorzelanny is pretty likely a goner by ST, which will probably recoup the value equivalent to, say, Guyer and Chirinos(not hard). The equivalent of Garza for Archer and Lee isn't nearly as bad or sensationalistic as "we gave up 4 of our best prospects!!!".

[UMFan83]

It's so weird to be talking baseball on this board.