Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[apete6]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

[jersey cubs fan]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

[Banedon]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

 

The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time.

[apete6]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

 

The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

Especially if its Pujols or Fielder on a 5 year contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

 

The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

Especially if its Pujols or Fielder on a 5 year contract.

 

Again, how is that a conflict of interest?

[Guest]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

 

The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

Especially if its Pujols or Fielder on a 5 year contract.

 

He wasn't agreeing with you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more.

 

Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it.

[Banedon]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

 

The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

Especially if its Pujols or Fielder on a 5 year contract.

 

'Twas sarcasm.

[jersey cubs fan]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more.

 

Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it.

 

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

[CUBZ99]

Maybe Garza needs to be traded in order to have the money to sign Fielder? :lol:

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

[Backtobanks]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

I'd much rather see Garza retained, but if the return is too good to pass up, so be it.

 

 

 

"I'd much rather see Garza retained, but if and only if the return is too good to pass up, so be it."

 

Fixed

[Butterscup1679666578]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

I'd much rather see Garza retained, but if the return is too good to pass up, so be it.

 

 

 

"I'd much rather see Garza retained, but if and only if the return is too good to pass up, so be it."

 

Fixed

 

thanks for clarifying that.

[apete6]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

Plus whatever compensation they would get for him by offering arbitration under the new system.

 

Or they could sign him to an extension. It's not like we're talking about a 35 year old guy who only has 2 more seasons left in him.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

Plus whatever compensation they would get for him by offering arbitration under the new system.

 

Or they could sign him to an extension. It's not like we're talking about a 35 year old guy who only has 2 more seasons left in him.

 

Okay, he's an asset for two years plus draft pick compensation plus the right to negotiate with him.

 

That still doesn't add up to a long-term asset to me. He no more counts as a 2014 asset than Zach Greinke does at this point.

[Brett]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

Plus whatever compensation they would get for him by offering arbitration under the new system.

 

Or they could sign him to an extension. It's not like we're talking about a 35 year old guy who only has 2 more seasons left in him.

 

Okay, he's an asset for two years plus draft pick compensation plus the right to negotiate with him.

 

That still doesn't add up to a long-term asset to me. He no more counts as a 2014 asset than Zach Greinke does at this point.

 

Not to mention the fact that, even if things go swimmingly with Garza in 2012 and 2013, he'll be awfully expensive come 2014.

 

There is nothing inherently inconsistent with signing a Fielder and trading a Garza, depending on the return.

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

That is a very long time to determine your plan for him going forward as well. A short-term asset is somebody who either has an expiring contract or is old and unlikely to be worth much in the intermediate future. Garza has 2 full seasons under Cubs control and he's young. He's isn't just a short-term asset.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

That is a very long time to determine your plan for him going forward as well. A short-term asset is somebody who either has an expiring contract or is old and unlikely to be worth much in the intermediate future. Garza has 2 full seasons under Cubs control and he's young. He's isn't just a short-term asset.

 

You don't control your plan going forward with him. That's up to him as much as it is you.

 

He has two seasons left with the Cubs. Anything else is pure speculation. That makes him a short-term asset.

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

 

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons.

 

That is a very long time to determine your plan for him going forward as well. A short-term asset is somebody who either has an expiring contract or is old and unlikely to be worth much in the intermediate future. Garza has 2 full seasons under Cubs control and he's young. He's isn't just a short-term asset.

 

You don't control your plan going forward with him. That's up to him as much as it is you.

 

He has two seasons left with the Cubs. Anything else is pure speculation. That makes him a short-term asset.

 

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

 

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If you trade Garza now you almost have to go after at least 2 front end starters or 1 front end and 2 good mid rotation guy between now and opening day 2013. Dempster and Z are gone after this year and any rotation pieced together with what we have now would be a bigger mess than Human Centapiede.

[rawaction]

If you trade Garza now you almost have to go after at least 2 front end starters or 1 front end and 2 good mid rotation guy between now and opening day 2013. Dempster and Z are gone after this year and any rotation pieced together with what we have now would be a bigger mess than my spelling of Centipede.

 

Fixed.

[treebird]

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

 

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset.

 

his low price isn't the only thing that makes him an asset.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

 

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset.

 

his low price isn't the only thing that makes him an asset.

 

It's a humongous percentage of his value as an asset.

[Guest]

Well then, let's cash in on all that value Blake DeWitt's got while the gettin's good.