Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[SouthSideRyan]

Hahahahahahahah! Well done.

 

Hey...Oliver Perez was sort of not terrible once or twice. Sort of.

Arthur Rhodes was a top 5 prospect. Ollie Perez was highly regarded. Myette, Lewis, Hawkins, and George were all top 100 prospects.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm confused. Is Mike Minor really Roy Halladay or not?

[Sammy Sofa]

Hahahahahahahah! Well done.

 

Hey...Oliver Perez was sort of not terrible once or twice. Sort of.

Arthur Rhodes was a top 5 prospect. Ollie Perez was highly regarded. Myette, Lewis, Hawkins, and George were all top 100 prospects.

 

Sweet, so it panned out just fine.

[Guest]

Aside from TVP, were any of those guys highly regarded at all as prospects?

Rhodes was the #5 prospect in baseball in 1992. Colby Lewis was #32 in 2003.

 

I'm under the assumption that by the sheer definition of the scope (23 yos who start 20 games in the majors are by definition highly regarded prospects coming into the season), they were all well regarded (BA only has prospect lists going back to 1990).

 

Welp, I guess you can go ahead and give up on a guy like that that quickly then.

[bukie]

Aside from TVP, were any of those guys highly regarded at all as prospects?

Rhodes was the #5 prospect in baseball in 1992. Colby Lewis was #32 in 2003.

 

I'm under the assumption that by the sheer definition of the scope (23 yos who start 20 games in the majors are by definition highly regarded prospects coming into the season), they were all well regarded (BA only has prospect lists going back to 1990).

 

Welp, I guess you can go ahead and give up on a guy like that that quickly then.

Unless they are Roy Halladay. Or, you know, a solid reliever 10 years down the road.

 

The interesting thing about Halladay, actually, was that he was only really bad in his age 24 season. In his age 23 season, he was actually really good. In 2000, though, beyond terrible in 13 starts.

[Tracer Bullet]

In his defense, Logan said "if you knew it was Roy Halladay."

 

Only an idiot would give up on Roy Halladay at age 23, David.

[bukie]

In his defense, Logan said "if you knew it was Roy Halladay."

 

Only an idiot would give up on Roy Halladay at age 23, David.

And if this front office has enough information on players to know that they'll turn into Roy Halladay, I really like the future of this organization.

[abuck1220]

ugh, thanks for posting that bukie...i would definitely NOT trade dempster for ken cloude.

 

DEMPSTER FOR MINOR/CLOUDE OFF THE TABLE.

[imb]

ugh, thanks for posting that bukie...i would definitely NOT trade dempster for ken cloude.

 

DEMPSTER FOR MINOR/CLOUDE OFF THE TABLE.

 

so you wouldn't trade dempster for TWO HALLADAYS?

[abuck1220]

two halladays, one ken cloude and one oliver perez. final offer.

[davell]

Heyman says Cubs say we're still trying to sign him, but rival execs think it comes down to Boston, New York, and Toronto.

[Guest]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

[davell]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

 

I actually agree with that. If I nitpick anything, I'd certainly take a major young piece, but I agree that the bulk of the deal needs to be AA type guys. I'll say this though: If Garza wants Cain money, I'm very hesitant to keep him. Probably would, but I'd hesitate.

[Sammy Sofa]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Yuuuuuuuuuuuup.

[abuck1220]

for sure. i have no interest in watching this team lose 105 games a year until 2017 or whatever.

[Guest]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

 

I actually agree with that. If I nitpick anything, I'd certainly take a major young piece, but I agree that the bulk of the deal needs to be AA type guys. I'll say this though: If Garza wants Cain money, I'm very hesitant to keep him. Probably would, but I'd hesitate.

 

Right. I wasn't saying every part of the return has to be AA or above, but you need to get significant MLB or MLB-ready talent in return. To use the Toronto example, you can take a Syndergaard, but a D'Arnoud or a Lawrie needs to be involved as well.

[El Duderino]

If Garza wants Cain money, he can take a hike. No hesitation.

[sneakypower]

Garza's such a legendarily bad hitter and fielder that it knocks his actual value down a non-insignificant amount from what his FIP suggests, but that's another argument

 

if i were to consider trading Garza, it would be with the full intention of signing Anibal Sanchez (7/100), Brandon McCarthy (5/70), or Edwin Jackson (4/50) to specifically replace his production and still have the extra two top-50 prospects you'd command in a trade for him

 

i know that's easier said than done, though

[Bryants Disco Ball]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

 

I actually agree with that. If I nitpick anything, I'd certainly take a major young piece, but I agree that the bulk of the deal needs to be AA type guys. I'll say this though: If Garza wants Cain money, I'm very hesitant to keep him. Probably would, but I'd hesitate.

 

Yowza. Cain money? Not only would I be very hesitant to keep him, there would be no probably.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

And just for those that don't know, Cain's contract will pay him an annual salary of $20.83 million.

 

Can't believe anybody would want Garza back at that price. Surprised to hear some would.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And just for those that don't know, Cain's contract will pay him an annual salary of $20.83 million.

 

Can't believe anybody would want Garza back at that price. Surprised to hear some would.

 

I'd think about it. That's just what players like him cost these days. We're entering a period of rapid inflation.

[Guest]

And just for those that don't know, Cain's contract will pay him an annual salary of $20.83 million.

 

Can't believe anybody would want Garza back at that price. Surprised to hear some would.

 

My comfort would depend on the years, but I don't flinch at all at 20 million for Garza.

[davell]

Yeah, when I posted Cain money, I'd think about it hard, because it's just not easy to find these guys. Not at or around the age Garza is right now. Prices are going upwards again and if we trade him, we're almost definitely punting 2013 at this point. My guess is this is why the negotiations aren't done already. If it were as easy as giving Garza something like what Danks got, this thing would be over and done with.

[gocubs2118]

Regardless of what they do with Garza, they're probably punting next year anyway. I'd go 5/100 with him, I would really have to think about giving Garza a 6 year deal at 20 mil a year. Pretty much all of his advanced stats are down from last year. Some of them aren't down by much but it's enough to really make me think twice about giving him a Matt Cain type deal.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Wow. Really surprised people are willing to go to $20.

 

I'll have to rethink this a little, but I guess I'm going to still be in the minority that says $20 is way too much, even if prices are starting to go up. I'd rather have Hamels at that, although you all have scared me that it's going to take way more to get him now.