Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guest]

You mean we might have to keep a good starting pitcher for 1.5 more prime years? Drat.

 

You're right and we're winning 70 games or less during that time. Makes complete sense.

 

If that's the case, we've learned that teams won't give up anyone of value for rentals, so I guess we are screwed.

[Guest]

You mean we might have to keep a good starting pitcher for 1.5 more prime years? Drat.

 

You're right and we're winning 70 games or less during that time. Makes complete sense.

 

If that's the case, we've learned that teams won't give up anyone of value for rentals, so I guess we are screwed.

 

of course, it'd be much nicer to get the value of a year's worth of control and potential draft pick compensation out of him, so this situation, nevertheless, sucks.

[Guest]

You mean we might have to keep a good starting pitcher for 1.5 more prime years? Drat.

 

You're right and we're winning 70 games or less during that time. Makes complete sense.

 

If that's the case, we've learned that teams won't give up anyone of value for rentals, so I guess we are screwed.

 

of course, it'd be much nicer to get the value of a year's worth of control and potential draft pick compensation out of him, so this situation, nevertheless, sucks.

 

Or maybe Garza turns it on through the end of this year and his value is just as high despite having less time under team control. Or maybe he has a lackluster 2nd half and is convinced to take the guaranteed money of an extension and then returns to form. There is plenty of time for Garza's value and utility to the team to ebb and flow, and as a guy who wouldn't be bad to have on the roster, and is under team control through next year, it's far from a nightmare for him to still be a Cub.

[dew1679666265]

You mean we might have to keep a good starting pitcher for 1.5 more prime years? Drat.

 

You're right and we're winning 70 games or less during that time. Makes complete sense.

 

And keeping the good pitcher in his prime would help us to win more games if we choose to try to do so.

[Guest]

Ken RosenthalVerified ‏@Ken_Rosenthal

Hamels, Greinke, J. Johnson only real considerations for #Rangers as they mull rotation options. Not interested in lesser starters.

[davell]

I wonder if medicals shared would be sufficient for an acquiring team, if Garza misses out on Monday? I'd say no, but with the extra year of control, I guess it's possible a few teams with next year in mind, like Toronto or KC could still make a deal for him.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Scott Miller ‏@ScottMCBS

Scout on #Dodgers re. Garza: "If they've got the money, they should go after him (& not Dempster). He's a Froot Loop, but he can pitch"

[El Duderino]

Scott Miller ‏@ScottMCBS

Scout on #Dodgers re. Garza: "If they've got the money, they should go after him (& not Dempster). He's a Froot Loop, but he can pitch"

 

a what?

[Cubswin11]

Froot Loop?? FFS

[El Duderino]

is froot loop a nickname for a pitcher who can't hit or field?

[mookie]

I think it is because he spits profusely.

[TruffleShuffle]

is that a gay slur?

[neely crenshaw]

they are attempting to build up our entire organization. we have limited players with the type of value that can net multiple good prospects. yes, if we are only concerned with putting the best team on the field next year then we would keep him. however, we are not going to compete next year. it is doesn't matter if we win 60-70 or 75 games if it doesn't help us get to the end goal of having an organization built to compete every year, not just a couple and then start over. we need depth, we need resources to trade in order to add stars, and we need to develop as many of our own players to do this. having a 4 star pitcher on a team that will lose 90-100 games is kind of like living in the projects but owning a rolex. it's pretty cool but in the end you still live in the projects.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because Lord knows Garza could only be good next year.

[rawaction]

Apparently, tons of scouts watching Garrett Richards tonight. Think Cubs could get him + Cowart in a Garza to Angels trade?

[dew1679666265]

they are attempting to build up our entire organization. we have limited players with the type of value that can net multiple good prospects. yes, if we are only concerned with putting the best team on the field next year then we would keep him. however, we are not going to compete next year. it is doesn't matter if we win 60-70 or 75 games if it doesn't help us get to the end goal of having an organization built to compete every year, not just a couple and then start over. we need depth, we need resources to trade in order to add stars, and we need to develop as many of our own players to do this. having a 4 star pitcher on a team that will lose 90-100 games is kind of like living in the projects but owning a rolex. it's pretty cool but in the end you still live in the projects.

 

This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy at some point. Of course we won't have a chance to contend next year if we trade away our good players. We've had a major infusion of talent the past couple of years, we'll have a very high draft pick and a very large pool of draft money next year, and we have great talent evaluators in the front office. We could make a legitimate attempt at contending next season and still build for the future at the same time.

[Hatman]

...and the short trend of bad timing for naive-press-leak-hating and/or arm-crampy-pregnant-wife-veteran-trade-chip pitchers continues.

 

You are one hell of a lurker.

 

Like Chauncy Gardener one said, I like to watch.

[javy knows my name]

...and the short trend of bad timing for naive-press-leak-hating and/or arm-crampy-pregnant-wife-veteran-trade-chip pitchers continues.

 

You are one hell of a lurker.

 

Like Chauncy Gardener one said, I like to watch.

 

Well now I know what I think you look like.

[El Duderino]

‏@BleacherNation

 

RT @jonmorosi: In other #Cubs RHP news: team continues to discuss Matt Garza with multiple suitors.

[neely crenshaw]

no mention of them much, but the angels need pitching. they wanted hamels who is now off the market. they have a bourjos as a 4th of, who aside from this year, spot starting and inconsistent playing time, has been a high 200's avg, mid 300 obp guy and has been replaced by trout, he is also a park ridge kid. plus they have several AA starters that look solid. They seem to have more need than the dodgers for either garza or dempster.

[davell]

Apparently, tons of scouts watching Garrett Richards tonight. Think Cubs could get him + Cowart in a Garza to Angels trade?

I think I'd want Hellweg in the deal too. Personally, I still think Richatds winds up more as a backend type. I think I just like packages from other teams more than them, for some reason.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh man, Peter Bourjos as the centerpiece for Matt Garza could not be more of a Jim Hendry trade.

[sneakypower]

Richards, Bourjos and Conger could be a possibility

[ctcf]

I dunno, I really get the feeling Garza won't be traded.

[neely crenshaw]

Oh man, Peter Bourjos as the centerpiece for Matt Garza could not be more of a Jim Hendry trade.

 

doesn't have to be the centerpiece, but you have a ml ready player, and a couple of AA pitchers and that could be a solid deal. right now we have nothing for garza or dempster. our future outfield is Dejesus, LaHair, Campana and a struggling jackson. There is not a single player there for 2014. he is a 270-300 ba guy, a 350-260 obp, and high 700's to low 800's ops guy through out his career. faster than heck, good defender....what's the down side? he's from park rudge? or that hendry might have liked him? right now the angels are talking bourjos and conger for shields.

of course you thought trumbo for marmol was awful.

Edited July 26, 2012 by neely crenshaw