Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Post Count Padder]

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi

#Tigers have interest in Matt Garza. #Cubs recently scouted Detroit's prospect-heavy Erie affiliate. But talks not serious, sources say.

 

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi

Teams that scouted Matt Garza last night, sources say: #BlueJays, #Indians, #Reds, #RedSox, #DBacks, #STLCards.

[Clem Fandango]

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi

Teams that scouted Matt Garza last night, sources say: #BlueJays, #Indians, #Reds, #RedSox, #DBacks, #STLCards.

 

Prooooobably not the best game to be scouted at for Matt.

[Sammy Sofa]

Prooooooooobably not basing their decision to try and trade for him off of one game (and yes, I know the stretch he's gone through recently).

[Clem Fandango]

Prooooooooobably not basing their decision to try and trade for him off of one game (and yes, I know the stretch he's gone through recently).

 

Nooooooooooo [expletive] it was a joke

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe in WSR-land.

[Clem Fandango]

Moving on...

 

Brett did a good, thorough write-up on the Garza situation...

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/06/lukewarm-stove-matt-garza-is-the-most-valuable-pitcher-on-the-trade-market-he-and-cubs-havent-talked-extension-in-months/

[davell]

Levine made a pretty decent point in his chat this week, when it comes to a guy like Garza, that conceivably has SOME validity. He could be getting really frustrated with losing and moving into a pennant race, could re-energize a guy like him. Let's hope that's how other teams look at it as well.

[cubbyvirus00]

Looking forward to seeing what the cubs could really get for him

[Little Slide Rooter]

Maybe in WSR-land.

 

Please, game threads are full of people over reacting to one game, but I'm not one of them. In fact I can assure you that when scouts come to watch a player, they're not so much interested in his line so much as mechanics and approach. Whether he threw a complete game shut out or got shelled for 10 runs in 3 innings, the effect on his trade value woul have been minimal at most. If they cared about his stats, they could check the box scores and save themselves the trip.

[Tyrant]

In fact I can assure you...

 

Talk to a lot of scouts?

[Little Slide Rooter]

In fact I can assure you...

 

Talk to a lot of scouts?

 

Only when they're selling cookies.

[UMFan83]

In fact I can assure you...

 

Talk to a lot of scouts?

 

Only when they're selling cookies.

 

You know that girl scouts aren't the same as baseball scouts right?

[rawaction]

In fact I can assure you...

 

Talk to a lot of scouts?

 

Only when they're selling cookies.

 

You know that girl scouts aren't the same as baseball scouts right?

 

That was a half decent joke that you just ruined.

[Magnetic Curses]

no, it really wasn't

[Tracer Bullet]

It wasn't a 10, but it was OK

[weis21]

for LLF, maybe.

[toonsterwu]

Random thoughts:

 

I'd love to see the Indians in on Bryan LaHair, but I just don't see a good trade the Cubs can swing with them for Garza that would seem to make sense for both sides. There simply isn't enough arm talent, and heck, unless Fransico Lindor is available, it isn't as if there's a high quantity of top quality.

 

The Reds, on the other hand, could be interesting. I don't know if there's many arms that I really love there, off the top, but some of their young arms have progressed and they could probably put together a nice arms package. If we could get, say, Corcino and Cingrani, that'd be an intriguing start to the package. There's some other combinations of prospects to start a package that could be intriguing, but I tend to think that it'd be hard to accept a deal without those two. For better or worse, we need arms, and unless the positional chip is elite coming back, I'd rather focus on arms.

 

If the Diamondbacks forked over one of their elite arms, they'd jumpt to the top of the list. Without one of Bauer/Skaggs/Bradley, would 2 guys from say, Corbin/Chafin/Holmberg be enough? I guess ... if we could get say, a Matt Davidson out of the deal, and 2 arms from their 2nd tier, it wouldn't be bad, but I'd hope for better.

 

It would sort of suck to see Matt Garza in a Cardinals uniform ... but, assuming Miller/Taveras aren't offered, if we could get say, Martinez and say, Trevor Rosenthal or Tyrell Jenkins ... this would be up there amongst the trade options we've been discussing.

 

I am half curious to see how the Pirates staff does the next few weeks. I half wonder if a guy from McDonald/Bedard/Burnett/Lincoln struggle, if they might consider going for pitching. If so, they would bring a ton to the table in terms of trade potential. Their offensive needs are far bigger, though, and I gotta think the priority will be there.

[Guest]

no, it really wasn't

however debatably good it was, UM definitely ruined it.

[davell]

Red Sox are over luxury tax threshold and want a team to send money over and they'll send better prospects, according to Rosenthal. Good lord, pull the trigger boys, we can't possibly be set up better than this for a trade.

[toonsterwu]

Red Sox are over luxury tax threshold and want a team to send money over and they'll send better prospects, according to Rosenthal. Good lord, pull the trigger boys, we can't possibly be set up better than this for a trade.

 

Thing is ... who? Matt Barnes and Jackie Bradley Jr. is a ... nice package, but ... not exactly jaw-dropping that we have to make the deal now, IMO, particularly since it'd be better if the top two prospects in a deal were arms. After Barnes ... unless we are offered Bard (and I think Cashner has a better chance to stick as a starter than Bard ... the Sox are fairly thin in arms (we're fairly similar systems in terms of the types of talent and where they are)), there simply isn't much arm wise. I mean, Ranaudo's hurt, Britton's lost a lot of luster from a couple years ago, and well, everyone's got intriguing low level upside arms. And I'm still not all that sure that Barnes has legitimate front of the rotation ceiling. Still taking a wait and see on Barnes as anything more than a mid-rotation ceiling type arm..

 

Now, if they put in Bogaerts, then sure, forget about an arm and take a potentially elite bat and figure out where he goes later, but I have my doubts Bogaerts is available (much as I really doubt he makes it as a shortstop, they'll keep him there for now, and if they have to, RF or 2nd may be options).

 

Don't get me wrong, I could see this sort of trade come down the pike. I'm not all that enthused with it, but could see it, and maybe they pull the trigger. Just don't know if it's a situation where we should pull the trigger now instead of waiting to see if the market develops. Some sort of injury in the next month could reshape things in regards to teams that need arms. Just don't know if this is a must-do package to say that we need to make a trade now.

[davell]

Toonster, you don't like Henry Owens?

[toonsterwu]

Toonster, you don't like Henry Owens?

 

To be honest, forgot about him for a second, so thinking about this as I go along ...

 

Do I like him individually? Heck yes. I think he has a tick better than mid-rotation ceiling for a lefty, which is very, very good (and I also understand that I open myself up for some criticism, as there have been lefties with plus change, 90-92 fastball that I wasn't high on, but if Owens can command his fastball, he could dominate).

 

But ... do I like him in a deal like this? It depends. Hey this is just me, and maybe this doesn't make that much sense considering I do like him. But ... as a 2nd piece to a deal like this, I'm not sure I'm all that enthused. I guess ... it's not backbreaking if I like the top piece, but I don't love Barnes and I half wonder if Barnes and Bradley, if offered, would be a case of a team selling high on their value (still not sure what Bradley is to be honest ... I'm just not sure I buy him as an top bat but the numbers are that good this year).

 

If we're talking Barnes, Bradley (or a comparable, non-Bogaerts piece, although I'm blanking on who), AND Owens ... I'd be fine with that.

[davell]

Honestly, I think that's a tad too "pie in the sky", so I've got Kalish substituted for Bradley. Do you like Kalish? Granted, it appears I'm way higher than you are on Barnes, so I understand if this isn't a package that wows you.

[toonsterwu]

Honestly, I think that's a tad too "pie in the sky", so I've got Kalish substituted for Bradley. Do you like Kalish? Granted, it appears I'm way higher than you are on Barnes, so I understand if this isn't a package that wows you.

 

Oh, I don't think there's a chance that they would fork over Barnes/Bradley Jr./Owens in a package. Just saying as the third piece, I'd be more intrigued with Owens.

 

Kalish ... I have mixed feelings about. The first is ... does he make sense. He'll be 25 next year, unless I'm mistaken, with 5 years of team-control left. He's not exactly a big time corner slugger, unless there's late developing power. Good power, good approach.

 

Do you go for this type of guy as the 2nd piece to a deal? Maybe. I actually haven't thought about Kalish in a long time, so maybe. At first glance, I'd understand it from a value perspective, don't know if I'd love it.

 

_____

 

It's not that I don't like Barnes. I do. It's just, I don't love Barnes. I know a lot of people have jumped their level of intrigue on him. I think things will be a bit clearer on what he is as he works through this tough patch in A+ right now. I'm hoping to make it out and catch a game, but I don't know if I will have time.

 

I guess, put it this way - some people are talking about Barnes and Bradley Jr. as elite chips, and I'm just not sure I'm buying it yet. On Barnes - He's still working on his changeup, which is more average, with some above average potential (and in that respect, I'm not that bothered by his tough stretch ... sounds like he's toying with his pitches in Salem, trying to develop them). The curve still, unless there's new reports suggesting otherwise, seems more pitch with above average ceiling. Maybe I'm completely off. You know, the positive reports on Pierce Johnson don't sound all that different from Matt Barnes.

____

 

In saying all this, we're leaving out one simple thing. Any Boston deal, we would hope would have Barnes, but whether or not Boston would part with their one SP prospect arm that could be ready in a couple years ... well, it's not a lock considering Garza would add future costs to an already high payroll. I think they'd be more apt to part with Bradley Jr. than Barnes, but Barnes is significantly more important to us.

[davell]

Ok, better question possibly: Name some arms from the Red Sox, Jays, Royals, Cards, Tigers, Braves, Dodgers, Yanks, Rangers, and Orioles you could be happy with as a 1st or very good 2nd piece, that you feel is realistic.