Red Sox Interested in Garza

[questionmarkgrace]

If we are splitting hairs, which clearly we are, his walks are up as is his whip against lesser competition than the AL east has to offer. Nonetheless, the point here is that we probably cant get more for him than what we gave up when he is not blowing people away.

 

It's really not splitting hairs, though. Sure his BB/9 is up over last year, but the 3.13 he's posted this year is still below his career average of 3.17. Meanwhile he's striking out over 2 batters per inning more than his career average. If you want to just take his Rays days of walking batters, he's up over last year but still behind the 3.50 BB/9 in 2009. His K/9 is a full strikeout higher than his 2009 while significantly greater than that when compared to his 2008 and 2010 seasons.

 

The higher WHIP is likely being influenced by a much higher BABIP than in his previous three years (.322 this year vs .270-.273 from 08-10). That could very easily be due to a horrid Cub defense vs great Rays defenses (which is entirely out of his control). The only thing about his numbers that is mediocre is his ERA and that's really the only reason he's not considered to be having a breakout season.

 

maybe mediocre is too strong a word but my point I don't think that he has increased in value since we have had him because he is not dominating a lesser league. Because of this I do not think that we could parlay him into a better package of prospects than we gave up.

 

I am well aware of his BABIP which is why I suggested he has had bad luck, for now the third time. A common misconception however is that BABIP is the indicator of luck when actually it only partially accounts for luck and partially accounts for normally hard hit balls. In other words if a pitcher is more hitable his BABIP will go up just as if he has bad luck. Right now, yes he is giving up more hits in the infield because of the cubs bad defense but much more hits in general are going to the outfield. A big question, is the batting average of balls in play is more luck based in the infield than in the outfield? Obviously outfield defense plays a role and the cubs defense this year is about 10-15 spots worse than the rays last year depending on the category. So part of the increase can be attributed to the disparity between a marginal outfield and a good one. But a .149 point increase? Some of this has to attributed to being more hittable as well. Hit trajectory seems to confirms this picture as his BABIP for line drives has increased by .100 points while on groundballs and flyballs has remained relatively the same. His stuff has been good but maybe he just cant control it right now which would account for balls left over the plate and hit hard or an increase in Hits/9; as well as increase K/9, and BB/9.

 

2011

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .113

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .587

 

2010

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .070

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .438

 

2009

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .061

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

2008

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .091

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

[jumbo]

A big question, is the batting average of balls in play is more luck based in the infield than in the outfield?

 

Are you counting a dribbler off the end of the bat that gets past Barney/Pena a hit to the infield or outfield? In Garza's first few starts it seemed like these were the only hits against him. He produced weak contact but the balls went for hits anyway. Sure, BABIP is an indication of a hard hit ball, for hitters and pitchers, but if every hard hit ball was a liner right at someone and all that weak contact turned into outs Garza would look like a God this year.

[dew1679666265]

maybe mediocre is too strong a word but my point I don't think that he has increased in value since we have had him because he is not dominating a lesser league. Because of this I do not think that we could parlay him into a better package of prospects than we gave up.

 

I do agree that teams would put too much focus on his mediocre ERA and not enough on how well he was actually pitching. If the rumors are true, however, that the Red Sox have an interest in him then they probably are looking beyond the ERA and realize he's been a very good pitcher.

 

That said, I do agree that he almost certainly won't bring back at least what we gave up in prospects so it doesn't make sense to trade him. The biggest reason, I think, is that we gave up so much to get him that it'd be hard for any team to be willing to match it, no matter how well he was pitching. The mediocre ERA does make them less likely to even try, though.

 

I am well aware of his BABIP which is why I suggested he has had bad luck, for now the third time. A common misconception however is that BABIP is the indicator of luck when actually it only partially accounts for luck and partially accounts for normally hard hit balls. In other words if a pitcher is more hitable his BABIP will go up just as if he has bad luck. Right now, yes he is giving up more hits in the infield because of the cubs bad defense but much more hits in general are going to the outfield. A big question, is the batting average of balls in play is more luck based in the infield than in the outfield? Obviously outfield defense plays a role and the cubs defense this year is about 10-15 spots worse than the rays last year depending on the category. So part of the increase can be attributed to the disparity between a marginal outfield and a good one. But a .149 point increase? Some of this has to attributed to being more hittable as well. Hit trajectory seems to confirms this picture as his BABIP for line drives has increased by .100 points while on groundballs and flyballs has remained relatively the same. His stuff has been good but maybe he just cant control it right now which would account for balls left over the plate and hit hard or an increase in Hits/9; as well as increase K/9, and BB/9.

 

His career H/9 is 8.6 while it's 8.9 this year. Not much of an increase at all. And like I pointed out previously, his BB/9 is still better than it was in 2009 and still very close to his career BB/9. His LD% is up over previous years (23% this year vs 19.1% in previous years) so when he's getting hit he's getting hit a little harder. He's not giving up many more hits, though, meaning he's less hittable overall this season.

 

2011

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .113

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .587

 

2010

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .070

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .438

 

2009

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .061

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

2008

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .091

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

Most of that can be explained by the poor Cubs' defense. It's not a coincidence that the Cubs have had three OFs who have been poor this year (Soriano, Reed, Kosuke) in the outfield for a number of Garza's starts. Campana has helped, but even still he's stuck between two guys who have struggled defensively this season.

[Brett]

maybe mediocre is too strong a word but my point I don't think that he has increased in value since we have had him because he is not dominating a lesser league. Because of this I do not think that we could parlay him into a better package of prospects than we gave up.

 

I do agree that teams would put too much focus on his mediocre ERA and not enough on how well he was actually pitching. If the rumors are true, however, that the Red Sox have an interest in him then they probably are looking beyond the ERA and realize he's been a very good pitcher.

 

That said, I do agree that he almost certainly won't bring back at least what we gave up in prospects so it doesn't make sense to trade him. The biggest reason, I think, is that we gave up so much to get him that it'd be hard for any team to be willing to match it, no matter how well he was pitching. The mediocre ERA does make them less likely to even try, though.

 

I am well aware of his BABIP which is why I suggested he has had bad luck, for now the third time. A common misconception however is that BABIP is the indicator of luck when actually it only partially accounts for luck and partially accounts for normally hard hit balls. In other words if a pitcher is more hitable his BABIP will go up just as if he has bad luck. Right now, yes he is giving up more hits in the infield because of the cubs bad defense but much more hits in general are going to the outfield. A big question, is the batting average of balls in play is more luck based in the infield than in the outfield? Obviously outfield defense plays a role and the cubs defense this year is about 10-15 spots worse than the rays last year depending on the category. So part of the increase can be attributed to the disparity between a marginal outfield and a good one. But a .149 point increase? Some of this has to attributed to being more hittable as well. Hit trajectory seems to confirms this picture as his BABIP for line drives has increased by .100 points while on groundballs and flyballs has remained relatively the same. His stuff has been good but maybe he just cant control it right now which would account for balls left over the plate and hit hard or an increase in Hits/9; as well as increase K/9, and BB/9.

 

His career H/9 is 8.6 while it's 8.9 this year. Not much of an increase at all. And like I pointed out previously, his BB/9 is still better than it was in 2009 and still very close to his career BB/9. His LD% is up over previous years (23% this year vs 19.1% in previous years) so when he's getting hit he's getting hit a little harder. He's not giving up many more hits, though, meaning he's less hittable overall this season.

 

2011

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .113

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .587

 

2010

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .070

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .438

 

2009

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .061

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

2008

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .091

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

Most of that can be explained by the poor Cubs' defense. It's not a coincidence that the Cubs have had three OFs who have been poor this year (Soriano, Reed, Kosuke) in the outfield for a number of Garza's starts. Campana has helped, but even still he's stuck between two guys who have struggled defensively this season.

 

I know it wasn't your main point, but I have a hard time believing Campana is better defensively than Johnson.

[dew1679666265]

I know it wasn't your main point, but I have a hard time believing Campana is better defensively than Johnson.

 

Reed's become a poor center field defender (-5.1 UZR this year), while Campana's only really good attribute is his very strong defense (+3.4 UZR). Reed's much better in left, but most of his innings this year have been accumulated in center, where he's no longer a good defender. Campana, on the other hand, is a good defender in center.

[CubColtPacer]

maybe mediocre is too strong a word but my point I don't think that he has increased in value since we have had him because he is not dominating a lesser league. Because of this I do not think that we could parlay him into a better package of prospects than we gave up.

 

I do agree that teams would put too much focus on his mediocre ERA and not enough on how well he was actually pitching. If the rumors are true, however, that the Red Sox have an interest in him then they probably are looking beyond the ERA and realize he's been a very good pitcher.

 

That said, I do agree that he almost certainly won't bring back at least what we gave up in prospects so it doesn't make sense to trade him. The biggest reason, I think, is that we gave up so much to get him that it'd be hard for any team to be willing to match it, no matter how well he was pitching. The mediocre ERA does make them less likely to even try, though.

 

I am well aware of his BABIP which is why I suggested he has had bad luck, for now the third time. A common misconception however is that BABIP is the indicator of luck when actually it only partially accounts for luck and partially accounts for normally hard hit balls. In other words if a pitcher is more hitable his BABIP will go up just as if he has bad luck. Right now, yes he is giving up more hits in the infield because of the cubs bad defense but much more hits in general are going to the outfield. A big question, is the batting average of balls in play is more luck based in the infield than in the outfield? Obviously outfield defense plays a role and the cubs defense this year is about 10-15 spots worse than the rays last year depending on the category. So part of the increase can be attributed to the disparity between a marginal outfield and a good one. But a .149 point increase? Some of this has to attributed to being more hittable as well. Hit trajectory seems to confirms this picture as his BABIP for line drives has increased by .100 points while on groundballs and flyballs has remained relatively the same. His stuff has been good but maybe he just cant control it right now which would account for balls left over the plate and hit hard or an increase in Hits/9; as well as increase K/9, and BB/9.

 

His career H/9 is 8.6 while it's 8.9 this year. Not much of an increase at all. And like I pointed out previously, his BB/9 is still better than it was in 2009 and still very close to his career BB/9. His LD% is up over previous years (23% this year vs 19.1% in previous years) so when he's getting hit he's getting hit a little harder. He's not giving up many more hits, though, meaning he's less hittable overall this season.

 

2011

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .113

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .587

 

2010

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .070

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .438

 

2009

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .061

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

2008

 

BABIP on balls hit to the infield: .091

BABIP on balls hit to the outfield: .463

 

Most of that can be explained by the poor Cubs' defense. It's not a coincidence that the Cubs have had three OFs who have been poor this year (Soriano, Reed, Kosuke) in the outfield for a number of Garza's starts. Campana has helped, but even still he's stuck between two guys who have struggled defensively this season.

 

I know it wasn't your main point, but I have a hard time believing Campana is better defensively than Johnson.

 

Johnson is still really good on balls that he can get to, but he's not that fast anymore. Campana is one of the fastest players in the league and has elite range. Especially in CF, that range is much more important than any of the other factors.

[TruffleShuffle]

reed is wildly overrated in cf because he makes a few great catches on balls that a faster CF would've caught without having to lay out.

[Shilzzz]

apparently very few posters are familiar with the red sox organization. they haven't "pumped out superstars" in a little while. many of their guys come up and flail about or are overrated wildly. bowden is no great shakes, lars anderson was a good hitter in a good hitter league then bombed when he faced a challenge, reddick is ok but by no means a starting corner of on a contending team, doubront is a back end starter at best, ranuando or whatever his name is is ok, jose iglesis is interesting but a lightweight ala eduardo escobar in the white sox system & not a huge difference maker, ... i think if people still believe that anthony rizzo and casey kelly are in boston's system that goes to show just how underwhelming their actual prospects are. there is no realistic package that boston would offer for garza that the cubs should consider.

[sneakypower]

apparently very few posters are familiar with the red sox organization. they haven't "pumped out superstars" in a little while. many of their guys come up and flail about or are overrated wildly. bowden is no great shakes, lars anderson was a good hitter in a good hitter league then bombed when he faced a challenge, reddick is ok but by no means a starting corner of on a contending team, doubront is a back end starter at best, ranuando or whatever his name is is ok, jose iglesis is interesting but a lightweight ala eduardo escobar in the white sox system & not a huge difference maker, ... i think if people still believe that anthony rizzo and casey kelly are in boston's system that goes to show just how underwhelming their actual prospects are. there is no realistic package that boston would offer for garza that the cubs should consider.

it really doesn't get much worse than Iglesias; 4 XBH (all doubles) in 241 PA

[iowahawkeyes89]

Like others have mentioned, the Red Sox or any team for that matter, would have to offer something more than a few mid level prospects.

 

Especially considering Garzas contract. That's a great value for a guy who's probably a #2 or 3 on most good teams.

 

I don't think the Red Sox have anything that would warrant trading Garza. If the Yankees are willing to give up Montero, I would consider that.

[Post Count Padder]

Sean McAdam of CSNNewEngland.com heard from a baseball source Monday that the Cubs have no interest in trading right-hander Matt Garza to the Red Sox.

A report in the Chicago Tribune earlier this week tied the Red Sox to Garza, but talks either stalled or never took place. "Nothing (to it)," the source told McAdam on Monday. "Who needs major league pitching more than (the Cubs) do?" The market for quality starting pitching this summer should continue to be quite thin.

[Brett]

I know it wasn't your main point, but I have a hard time believing Campana is better defensively than Johnson.

 

Reed's become a poor center field defender (-5.1 UZR this year), while Campana's only really good attribute is his very strong defense (+3.4 UZR). Reed's much better in left, but most of his innings this year have been accumulated in center, where he's no longer a good defender. Campana, on the other hand, is a good defender in center.

 

Setting aside the viability of UZR (which varies wildly from year to year, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what it's supposed to be measuring), I guess I could buy that Campana covers more ground than Johnson. It just looks to me like Campana takes poor routes (which he often overcomes with his speed, a la Juan Pierre), and has no arm at all (also a la Juan Pierre).

 

In other words, he reminds me of Juan Pierre defensively. And I hated Juan Pierre defensively. Maybe I'm just jaded.