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

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

It's also not like people are pretending he is going to turn into Roy Halladay.

[fromthestretch]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

It's also not like people are pretending he is going to turn into Roy Halladay.

 

See my last post. Expecting improvement is one thing. Expecting him to "excel" is another, unless you consider a slight improvement from his current performance as "excelling".

[erik316wttn]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

True, but he won't have to face the mega-offenses of Boston and New York, plus it's always easier for a pitcher to go from the AL to the NL than vice-versa because of no DH. Will he put up Halladay numbers? No. But I think his stats could improve.

 

Saying he could improve is a lot different than saying he could "excel".

 

I never said he would "excell". But I think Garza would be an improvement in our rotation. Z/Garza/Demp/Cashner/? isn't like Oswalt/Hamels/Halladay, but it's not terrible. Solid at worst.

[fromthestretch]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

True, but he won't have to face the mega-offenses of Boston and New York, plus it's always easier for a pitcher to go from the AL to the NL than vice-versa because of no DH. Will he put up Halladay numbers? No. But I think his stats could improve.

 

Saying he could improve is a lot different than saying he could "excel".

 

I never said he would "excell". But I think Garza would be an improvement in our rotation. Z/Garza/Demp/Cashner/? isn't like Oswalt/Hamels/Halladay, but it's not terrible. Solid at worst.

 

You didn't, but Northside Blues did. You quoted my response to his post.

 

I'm not saying Garza wouldn't be effective. I just don't see it as a big enough improvement to justify paying $3-4 million more than Wells is making.

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

It's also not like people are pretending he is going to turn into Roy Halladay.

 

See my last post. Expecting improvement is one thing. Expecting him to "excel" is another, unless you consider a slight improvement from his current performance as "excelling".

 

Excel is kind of vague, but maybe it's aggressive. Most people are talking about improvement. Opponents hit .248/.308/.420 off Garza last year for an OPS against of 728. The Yankees and Red Sox hit .314/.363/.629 and .286/.360/.511, respectively off of him for OPS of 991 and 871. That represented 30% of his games.

[treebird]

i like garza quite a bit and would love to see if tampa would like to get confused and accept a vitters-centered package.

[Dr. Cub]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza. Edited December 8, 2010 by Dr. Cub

[rocket]

i like garza quite a bit and would love to see if tampa would like to get confused and accept a vitters-centered package.

 

agreed. i'm a little surprised at the lack of excitement about this possibility.

[erik316wttn]

i like garza quite a bit and would love to see if tampa would like to get confused and accept a vitters-centered package.

 

agreed. i'm a little surprised at the lack of excitement about this possibility.

 

I'm in favor of any trade that improves the team, and I think Garza would.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

 

Wells is more than a year older with a lesser resume.

[javy knows my name]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

Who cares about Wells' stuff? What do you see in his makeup that suggests that he will start giving up walks or allowing HRs? His K's aren't impressive, but they could go down (i. e. decreases FB velocity) and he'd still be effective. Garza apparently has really good stuff but doesn't locate it well. Location is probably Wells' best asset and one doesn't lose it with age.

[Dr. Cub]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

 

Wells is more than a year older with a lesser resume.

 

 

Yes he is. Apparantly I've forgotten that August comes before November. I agree completely with the resume comment. I want Garza, as long as the cost isn't beyond Wells and a mediocre prospect.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

Who cares about Wells' stuff? What do you see in his makeup that suggests that he will start giving up walks or allowing HRs? His K's aren't impressive, but they could go down (i. e. decreases FB velocity) and he'd still be effective. Garza apparently has really good stuff but doesn't locate it well. Location is probably Wells' best asset and one doesn't lose it with age.

 

What does his makeup have to do with it? Wells got worse this season. His numbers aren't impressive and neither is his stuff. He also has a fairly minimal track record.

[dew1679666265]

Career xFIP:

 

Wells - 4.18

Garza - 4.45

 

Garza strikes out one more hitter per nine innings, Wells walks about half a guy less per nine innings. Garza surrenders 1.09 HR/9, Wells surrenders 0.88 HR/9. Garza costs more.

 

I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza. I'm not against going after Garza, but I'd almost rather go after Brandon Webb as a reclamation project than give up good, young talent for Garza.

[jersey cubs fan]

but I'd almost rather go after Brandon Webb as a reclamation project than give up good, young talent for Garza.

 

Young? Garza is younger and more talented.

[Dr. Cub]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

Who cares about Wells' stuff? What do you see in his makeup that suggests that he will start giving up walks or allowing HRs? His K's aren't impressive, but they could go down (i. e. decreases FB velocity) and he'd still be effective. Garza apparently has really good stuff but doesn't locate it well. Location is probably Wells' best asset and one doesn't lose it with age.

 

 

His H, HR, and BB per 9 all increased last year in addition to a significant jump in ERA, and a massive decline in ERA+. Also, as I stated, I care about his "stuff".

Edited December 8, 2010 by Dr. Cub

[Dr. Cub]

Career xFIP:

 

Wells - 4.18

Garza - 4.45

 

Garza strikes out one more hitter per nine innings, Wells walks about half a guy less per nine innings. Garza surrenders 1.09 HR/9, Wells surrenders 0.88 HR/9. Garza costs more.

 

I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza. I'm not against going after Garza, but I'd almost rather go after Brandon Webb as a reclamation project than give up good, young talent for Garza.

 

Wells has a much smaller sample size to choose from. In other words, in 3 years (assuming Garza came to the NL) those numbers would be vastly different.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Dr. Cub

[javy knows my name]

I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.

Who cares about Wells' stuff? What do you see in his makeup that suggests that he will start giving up walks or allowing HRs? His K's aren't impressive, but they could go down (i. e. decreases FB velocity) and he'd still be effective. Garza apparently has really good stuff but doesn't locate it well. Location is probably Wells' best asset and one doesn't lose it with age.

 

What does his makeup have to do with it? Wells got worse this season. His numbers aren't impressive and neither is his stuff. He also has a fairly minimal track record.

I'm just grasping at straws trying to divine why some are so sure he's trending toward a big decline. If you believe he's a good bet to rebound next year or to just not get worse every year from here on out, he's a solid value and we're selling him short if he's used to acquire a guy who's 10x more expensive and not markedly better than he is.

[dew1679666265]

but I'd almost rather go after Brandon Webb as a reclamation project than give up good, young talent for Garza.

 

Young? Garza is younger and more talented.

 

The idea of prospects has been thrown around - such as Carpenter, McNutt, Vitters, etc. I wasn't responding just to your Wells/Garza deal, but to deals that include young talent in general.

 

And Wells has been very similar statistically to Garza, if not slightly better plus he's a whole lot cheaper. They have similar peripherals and Wells has a better career xFIP. I don't see what gives Garza a clear, statistical advantage.

[Tracer Bullet]

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

A lot of people keep saying this, but I'm not sure that it's an accurate statement. While he may see a slight improvement in his overall numbers, it's not like he's going to turn into Roy Halladay. Garza would probably be better off in the NL West, where the ballparks tend to be more favorable to fly-ball pitchers.

 

True, but he won't have to face the mega-offenses of Boston and New York, plus it's always easier for a pitcher to go from the AL to the NL than vice-versa because of no DH. Will he put up Halladay numbers? No. But I think his stats could improve.

 

Saying he could improve is a lot different than saying he could "excel".

 

I never said he would "excell". But I think Garza would be an improvement in our rotation. Z/Garza/Demp/Cashner/? isn't like Oswalt/Hamels/Halladay, but it's not terrible. Solid at worst.

 

Garza's a guy who could excel in the switch from AL to NL.

 

I think so, too.

 

I like Garza, but I'm not sure what makes him more likely to excel in a move to the NL than any other pitcher.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm just grasping at straws trying to divine why some are so sure he's trending toward a big decline. If you believe he's a good bet to rebound next year or to just not get worse every year from here on out, he's a solid value and we're selling him short if he's used to acquire a guy who's 10x more expensive and not markedly better than he is.

 

He turns 29 next summer. He is who he is and I really don't see much hope for a rebound.

[jersey cubs fan]

but I'd almost rather go after Brandon Webb as a reclamation project than give up good' date=' young talent for Garza.[/quote']

 

Young? Garza is younger and more talented.

 

The idea of prospects has been thrown around - such as Carpenter, McNutt, Vitters, etc. I wasn't responding just to your Wells/Garza deal, but to deals that include young talent in general.

 

And Wells has been very similar statistically to Garza, if not slightly better plus he's a whole lot cheaper. They have similar peripherals and Wells has a better career xFIP. I don't see what gives Garza a clear, statistical advantage.

 

Your whole post was about Wells and Garza so I'm not sure why I would think you were referring to other young talent.

[dew1679666265]

Wells has a much smaller sample size to choose from. In other words, in 3 years (assuming Garza came to the NL) those numbers would be vastly different.

 

Which also means we have a much less clear idea of exactly how good Wells will be. He's already been a lot better than many people thought he would be, while Garza hasn't turned the corner yet despite better stuff than Wells.

 

I don't see any reason to pay Garza $5+ million when we have Wells for significantly cheaper. Garza hasn't been significantly better than Wells.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wells has a much smaller sample size to choose from. In other words, in 3 years (assuming Garza came to the NL) those numbers would be vastly different.

 

Which also means we have a much less clear idea of exactly how good Wells will be. He's already been a lot better than many people thought he would be, while Garza hasn't turned the corner yet despite better stuff than Wells.

 

I don't see any reason to pay Garza $5+ million when we have Wells for significantly cheaper. Garza hasn't been significantly better than Wells.

 

Garza has a significantly better resume and is 15 months younger.

[dew1679666265]

I'm just grasping at straws trying to divine why some are so sure he's trending toward a big decline. If you believe he's a good bet to rebound next year or to just not get worse every year from here on out, he's a solid value and we're selling him short if he's used to acquire a guy who's 10x more expensive and not markedly better than he is.

 

He turns 29 next summer. He is who he is and I really don't see much hope for a rebound.

 

And what reason do we have to believe that Garza will be much better than Wells from here on out? He hasn't been to this point.