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

[Exile on Waveland]

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.

 

Honestly, any team with Starlin Castro should be thrilled about their shortstop situation, regardless of minor league prospects. Full stop.

[BigSlick]

heres the big question: could we have had Greinke with the same haul?

 

if we could, then Hendry made a damn big mistake

 

Getting Greinke probably would have required a few tweaks to increase the quality, but nothing so substantial as to completely overhaul the deal.

 

What pisses me off is that I think this is also the kind of package that could have netted Adrian Gonzalez. Maybe the Padres wanted the Red Sox prospects, I don't know. But, when you compare that package to what the Cubs gave up, again, I think a minor change or two to the Cubs' prospects to increase the overall quality would have been comparable to what the Red Sox traded for Gonzalez.

 

Also, why do people think the NL Central will be weak this year? As far as I can tell, the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers will all roughly be the same as or better than last year, while the Pirates (yeah, yeah) should start seeing dividends from bolstering their farm system. I get the feeling that this will be a difficult division to win, even with a good team.

 

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

If we can't sign Greinke or Gonzalez to club friendly deals after this year when a lot of money comes off, then we shouldn't bother trying to win long term anyway.

 

This also makes all the meatheads talking about us going after Pujols next year all the funnier

[MWV]

In 2012, the Cubs have $62.5 Mil. committed with 6 3rd year arb. eligibles, 1 2nd year and 2 1st years. Assuming Garza makes ~$10 mil. in arbitration, that leaves about ~$25-30 million (my estimate, not a "hard number", obviously) to spend on 2 enormous holes at at 1B and 3B. Considering this team's needs, this is a weird move. The prospects sent amount to an overpay, and although Garza is a good pitcher, is the difference between Garza and Wells/Gorzelanny/Cashner/etc. worth ~$10 mil. to a team trying to "rebuild"?

Looking beyond 2012, the only contracts on the books are $19 mil. annual to Soriano (2013-2014) and an option year for Z in 2013. Directing their resources (prospects + cash spent this offseason) at Adrian Gonzales and signing him longterm seems like exactly what a "rebuilding" major market team should've done, unless by "rebuilding" Ricketts means "cutting payroll to Pittsburgh levels over the next 4 years".

[CubsWin]

I don't have a problem trading prospects for established ML talent like Garza, but damn, did we have to send thus much for a guy like Garza? He's not freaking Nolan Ryan, Jack Morris, or even Rick Suttcliffe. He's probably Matt Clement, whose stuff I loved, but who could never harness it consistently.

He seemed to harness it consistently last year.

 

What makes it somewhat palatable he was traded is that the Cubs have other arms in system. Even if he hits, he might not be missed. Might...

[Outshined_One]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

[mookie]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

 

Can we trade Fukudome for DeRosa purely for fan appeal and superficial awesomeness!?

 

:blush:

[Guest]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

 

Come on, Garza's going to make half as much as Greinke this year, and half as much as Gonzalez going forward. Plus he'll be underpaid relative to his production. Fukudome and Gorzelanny have been rumored on the way out since the offseason started, and trading for Garza only reinforces the idea they'll move one or both of them.

[Tyrant]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

 

My biggest concern about this is that the Ricketts are going to keep dropping the payroll down in the coming years.

[mookie]

Gorz can't make that much. Isn't Fukudome one of the only ways to shed some salary?

[Guest]

Maybe the real hold up on a deal for Garza was waiting for Hendry to find takers for Gorz/Fukudome. Maybe after Garza passes a physical, other trades will be announced?

 

Or would Ricketts give Hendry his blessing to make this deal and somewhat blow up the budget cap if he can't move payroll.

 

If they do trade Fukudome, they'd be eating some of his contract most assuredly, and they'd probably still need a 4th outfielder to round out the roster.

[Backtobanks]

All this talk of this package could have gotten us Greinke cracks me up because many of the same posters were worried about Greinke's anxiety issues when he was mentioned as a trade candidate.

[Guest]

This is today's Sun-Times.

 

http://twitpic.com/3o63sy

 

Except, that is not Matt Garza.

 

"Are you sure that's Garza?"

"Well, he looks Hispanic and he's got hair on his chin, so we're going to go with it."

"Good enough for me. Let's run it."

[dew1679666265]

Is there something you'd like to say about Garza's peripherals?

 

As it's been said on here and elsewhere, xFIP and FIP are just metrics. They can be very useful. But they are certainly not the only way to get a complete picture of a pitcher. Garza has put up actual results that are better than his xFIP and FIP for 700+ major league innings. At some point people need to examine why that might be happening instead of ignoring a trend and just pointing to his FIP's and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

Fangraphs had that article yesterday that basically chalked it up to Garza being lucky on his flyballs not going over the fence as often as Aaron Harang's. They said there's no evidence to suggest that's a skill, which seems odd to me. Given that Garza has a big, riding fastball and likes to work up in the zone, I think it's very possible that he's developed the ability to be successful that way. And since xFIP tends to favor high-strikeout, groundball types like Ubaldo Jimenez, it may not completely measure Garza as a pitcher. Granted, that's just one possible explanation I threw out there and it may not actually mean anything. But I think there's enough of a sample size of Garza outperforming his PERIPHERALS that it should lead to more examination, instead of taking every Fangraphs metric as an absolute.

 

I've said before that Garza could be a guy who simply outpitches his peripherals and if he is, then this is probably a decent to good trade. However, I don't know that for sure and simply looking at his numbers makes me concerned he may regress back to his peripherals. If he does that, it was a poor deal. Tampa has had a much better defense over the years than the Cubs and FIP and xFIP neutralize for defense. Thus, it could well be that Garza was helped by the great Tampa defense to post the ERA/WHIP numbers he did and he won't have that defense helping him in Chicago. I don't know the answer and if I'm going to buy into a trade where we give up Archer and Lee, I want to know the answer beforehand. Trading top prospects should be reserved for sure things and I'm not convinced Garza is that.

 

Hendry may know that answer and if he does, great. But if he's not certain Garza will keep up the ERA/WHIP numbers coming over to Chicago, then making this trade was not a good idea.

 

And it's not just FIP and xFIP I'm looking at. Garza has a 7.10 K/9, 3.18 BB/9 and 1.07 HR/9. Wells has a 6.59 K/9, 2.78 BB/9 and .93 HR/9. Garza strikes out half a batter more per nine, but also walks nearly half a batter more per nine and gives up slightly more homeruns per nine. Maybe he'll keep outpitching those too - and I hope he does since he's now a Cub - but since he was a luxury item that we had no need for, I don't see why we felt the need to take that gamble with two very high ceiling prospects unless Hendry is sure about why he's outpitched his peripherals and that he'll continue to do so.

[dew1679666265]

Come on, Garza's going to make half as much as Greinke this year, and half as much as Gonzalez going forward. Plus he'll be underpaid relative to his production. Fukudome and Gorzelanny have been rumored on the way out since the offseason started, and trading for Garza only reinforces the idea they'll move one or both of them.

 

If adding Garza makes it more likely that they trade Fuku, then all the more reason to dislike this trade.

[CubsWin]

Here's a really good read for those with an insider subscription over at ESPN.

 

For those who don't have a subscription, first, why are you so cheap, it's a couple a bucks, and second, the article basically has quotes from a variety of baseball people about the Garza trade and they go back and forth with some saying the Cubs got a good deal and some say the Rays did. The differing opinions are interesting to read.

[Guest]

Is there something you'd like to say about Garza's peripherals?

 

As it's been said on here and elsewhere, xFIP and FIP are just metrics. They can be very useful. But they are certainly not the only way to get a complete picture of a pitcher. Garza has put up actual results that are better than his xFIP and FIP for 700+ major league innings. At some point people need to examine why that might be happening instead of ignoring a trend and just pointing to his FIP's and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

Fangraphs had that article yesterday that basically chalked it up to Garza being lucky on his flyballs not going over the fence as often as Aaron Harang's. They said there's no evidence to suggest that's a skill, which seems odd to me. Given that Garza has a big, riding fastball and likes to work up in the zone, I think it's very possible that he's developed the ability to be successful that way. And since xFIP tends to favor high-strikeout, groundball types like Ubaldo Jimenez, it may not completely measure Garza as a pitcher. Granted, that's just one possible explanation I threw out there and it may not actually mean anything. But I think there's enough of a sample size of Garza outperforming his PERIPHERALS that it should lead to more examination, instead of taking every Fangraphs metric as an absolute.

 

I've said before that Garza could be a guy who simply outpitches his peripherals and if he is, then this is probably a decent to good trade. However, I don't know that for sure and simply looking at his numbers makes me concerned he may regress back to his peripherals. If he does that, it was a poor deal. Tampa has had a much better defense over the years than the Cubs and FIP and xFIP neutralize for defense. Thus, it could well be that Garza was helped by the great Tampa defense to post the ERA/WHIP numbers he did and he won't have that defense helping him in Chicago. I don't know the answer and if I'm going to buy into a trade where we give up Archer and Lee, I want to know the answer beforehand. Trading top prospects should be reserved for sure things and I'm not convinced Garza is that.

 

Hendry may know that answer and if he does, great. But if he's not certain Garza will keep up the ERA/WHIP numbers coming over to Chicago, then making this trade was not a good idea.

 

And it's not just FIP and xFIP I'm looking at. Garza has a 7.10 K/9, 3.18 BB/9 and 1.07 HR/9. Wells has a 6.59 K/9, 2.78 BB/9 and .93 HR/9. Garza strikes out half a batter more per nine, but also walks nearly half a batter more per nine and gives up slightly more homeruns per nine. Maybe he'll keep outpitching those too - and I hope he does since he's now a Cub - but since he was a luxury item that we had no need for, I don't see why we felt the need to take that gamble with two very high ceiling prospects unless Hendry is sure about why he's outpitched his peripherals and that he'll continue to do so.

I think you're (and many others a lot of the time) missing the point. If a guy has a track record like Garza it's pretty safe to guess he will over perform his "peripherals" for at least a few more years; after all, that's why they are called what they are. I'd also like to add, it's very important to always put data into context. Garza is a nice pitcher. He doesn't seem to fit what Ricketts said his strategy was going to be though. It's classic Hendry. Assemble parts with no real overreaching strategy. It's all tactics with Hendry.

[Guest]

Here's a really good read for those with an insider subscription over at ESPN.

 

For those who don't have a subscription, first, why are you so cheap, it's a couple a bucks, and second, the article basically has quotes from a variety of baseball people about the Garza trade and they go back and forth with some saying the Cubs got a good deal and some say the Rays did. The differing opinions are interesting to read.

 

The subscription isn't worth a couple a bucks. I've had it off and on over the years, and it's been a waste of money. Besides the fact that subscribing also meant that they cluttered my mailbox with hard copy magazines (ESPN the magazine) that are not the slightest bit environmentally friendly and don't get read, either.

[dew1679666265]

I think you're (and many others a lot of the time) missing the point. If a guy has a track record like Garza it's pretty safe to guess he will over perform his "peripherals" for at least a few more years; after all, that's why they are called what they are.

 

He may, yes. But why has he outperformed them? It could just be the way it is, it could be random fluke, it could be a great Tampa defense. Why he's outperformed them will tell us whether or not he will continue to do so in Chicago.

 

It's never enough to just take results at face value and not look any deeper. When you find out why a player has posted the results he has, you get a better idea of whether or not he can improve upon/regress/hold steady in the future. Garza has gotten good results to this point, but there are reasons to potentially believe he may not continue to do so. That's worth considering.

 

I'd also like to add, it's very important to always put data into context. Garza is a nice pitcher. He doesn't seem to fit what Ricketts said his strategy was going to be though. It's classic Hendry. Assemble parts with no real overreaching strategy. It's all tactics with Hendry.

 

In a way he does and in a way he doesn't. He is still young and even after arbitration won't be paid huge money, but is a marginal upgrade over the current roster and cost valuable minor league resources. It's the right type of player to target, I think we just gave up too much.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is today's Sun-Times.

 

http://twitpic.com/3o63sy

 

Except, that is not Matt Garza.

 

"Are you sure that's Garza?"

"Well, he looks Hispanic and he's got hair on his chin, so we're going to go with it."

"Good enough for me. Let's run it."

 

Meanwhile, a newspaper exec notices that there are two people working on the same section and realizes one can be laid off and improve his bonus.

[questionmarkgrace]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

 

the tribune article for today also specified that the Royals wanted major league ready talent for greinke. Some of the guys we traded are close but the fact that Lee is still in low A and Archer still probably a year away were probably factors in us not getting Greinke. As far as AGonz goes, I agree with the other poster who suggested that the new padres gm's familiarity with the Bo-Sox system put us at a disadvantage for making that trade.

 

I'm pretty happy with this trade and would be really happy if that minor league pitcher is anything of substance. We are probably not getting a decent starter back but a AA closer with potential would suffice. Then again, I was not really high on anyone we gave up: Guyer is a 4th of, Archer could be a #3 starter down the road or may flame out due to lack of control but obviously the best prospect in this deal, Lee looks to me like Alcides Escobar light, and Chirinos and Fuld are simply throw ins who no longer occupy or threaten to occupy the 40 man roster.

[questionmarkgrace]

No use bringing up Greinke and Gonzalez because the Cubs don't have the money for their contracts. The big reason for this deal is that Garza has had success, is still young, and is controlled for the next 3 years.

 

About that...

 

Garza, whose $3.35 million 2010 salary could nearly double in arbitration this winter, doesn’t fit the space Hendry had left in his payroll budget for 2011, which suggests that ownership consent was necessary and that a trade or two could follow to shed salary.

 

Garza falls into a similar category as Greinke and Gonzalez in terms of breaking the Cubs' budget. He might be under the Cubs' control over the next three years, but he doesn't come cheap.

 

the tribune article for today also specified that the Royals wanted major league ready talent for greinke. Some of the guys we traded are close but the fact that Lee is still in low A and Archer still probably a year away were probably factors in us not getting Greinke. As far as AGonz goes, I agree with the other poster who suggested that the new padres gm's familiarity with the Bo-Sox system put us at a disadvantage for making that trade.

 

I'm pretty happy with this trade and would be really happy if that minor league pitcher is anything of substance. We are probably not getting a decent starter back but a AA closer with potential would suffice. Then again, I was not really high on anyone we gave up: Guyer is a 4th of, Archer could be a #3 starter down the road or may flame out due to lack of control but he was obviously the best prospect in this deal, Lee looks to me like Alcides Escobar light, and Chirinos and Fuld are simply throw ins who no longer occupy or threaten to occupy the 40 man roster.

[PrimeTime]

Talent evaluators spoken to by ESPN's Buster Olney don't seem to be overly impressed with the Matt Garza deal from either end of things.

 

Our View: The consensus seems to be the Cubs might be overestimating their chances of competing in 2011, making the deal unnecessary, while most believe the Rays aren't getting any impact prospects in return. And while it's surely a disheartening move for Tampa fans, Garza, while a great MLB pitcher, isn't exactly a once in a generation hurler, or even a true ace.

[davell]

Why does this have to be considered a "win now" move? Garza is going to be 27 this season and we've got him for 2 more after that. Sure, he'll help this year, but this move is more for the future than it is for 2011, if you ask me.

[Guest]

Why does this have to be considered a "win now" move? Garza is going to be 27 this season and we've got him for 2 more after that. Sure, he'll help this year, but this move is more for the future than it is for 2011, if you ask me.

 

Seriously.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Any truth to the rumor that the Rays also threw in a one word trademark, and we will be the Devil Cubs in 2011?