Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Little Slide Rooter]

what was so bad about the zambrano deal? he clearly had very little value.

 

Insisting that he absolutely had to be sold at a time when he clearly had very little value, for starters.

 

It's hard to argue with that. I doubt that his value could have possibly gone any lower than it was when we traded him.

Zambrano had no value then, and he has no value now. I haven't heard any rumors on Zambrano. Have you?

 

I never said that it would necessarily get any higher. Just that it couldn't get any lower. And aside from a few good starts from Wood, it's not like the open rotation spot was of much benefit to us.

[Guest]

What a weird page.

[17 Seconds]

haven't the padres been extending some guys to compete in the short term? they're trying to move headley (which conflicts with that idea but whatever). any chance whatsoever for a deal involving headley and garza? there was another rumor about the cubs looking for minor league 3b today, so maybe they'd be into that. garza would be a really good fit in petco, and his injury might not be as a big of a deal for a team thats already out of it.

 

and now i see that i am wsr

 

edit: for some reason i thought headley was 26

[toonsterwu]

haven't the padres been extending some guys to compete in the short term? they're trying to move headley (which conflicts with that idea but whatever). any chance whatsoever for a deal involving headley and garza? there was another rumor about the cubs looking for minor league 3b today, so maybe they'd be into that. garza would be a really good fit in petco, and his injury might not be as a big of a deal for a team thats already out of it.

 

and now i see that i am wsr

 

edit: for some reason i thought headley was 26

 

I've got high doubts that the Padres would have interest in adding Garza. I think their interests in moving Headley have as much to do with the fact that Gyorko is close to ready, and he really isn't ideal at 2nd base. Thus, with a cheap alternative at 3rd, if they feel like Gyorko can produce enough offensively, then moving Headley, in a seller's market (particularly for the position) makes some sense.

 

I wouldn't mind looking at Headley (largely because I think people forget that he was guy with good power potential in the minors, but changed his swing to adapt to Petco), but I doubt we get involved with that because the reports for what they are seeking is just ... enormous. I like Headley, but giving up that much to get him now makes zero sense.

[Theo]

Regarding the Zambrano deal, I'm wondering if it would have been more productive to pay Zambrano to sit home this year, rather waste on roster spot on Chris Volstad.

[17 Seconds]

haven't the padres been extending some guys to compete in the short term? they're trying to move headley (which conflicts with that idea but whatever). any chance whatsoever for a deal involving headley and garza? there was another rumor about the cubs looking for minor league 3b today, so maybe they'd be into that. garza would be a really good fit in petco, and his injury might not be as a big of a deal for a team thats already out of it.

 

and now i see that i am wsr

 

edit: for some reason i thought headley was 26

 

I've got high doubts that the Padres would have interest in adding Garza. I think their interests in moving Headley have as much to do with the fact that Gyorko is close to ready, and he really isn't ideal at 2nd base. Thus, with a cheap alternative at 3rd, if they feel like Gyorko can produce enough offensively, then moving Headley, in a seller's market (particularly for the position) makes some sense.

 

I wouldn't mind looking at Headley (largely because I think people forget that he was guy with good power potential in the minors, but changed his swing to adapt to Petco), but I doubt we get involved with that because the reports for what they are seeking is just ... enormous. I like Headley, but giving up that much to get him now makes zero sense.

 

yea, i don't usually get into the hypothetical trade stuff. i'm ashamed of myself.

[toonsterwu]

Regarding the Zambrano deal, I'm wondering if it would have been more productive to pay Zambrano to sit home this year, rather waste on roster spot on Chris Volstad.

 

Eh ... as badly as Volstad tanked, there were some statistical indicators that suggested that he might be able to turn it around, and he had a superb spring. At the end of the day, you'd rather get an asset to gamble on than simply eating the money. Volstad hasn't been that much worse than say, Travis Wood (xFIP is fairly close, as is SIERA). He just hasn't turned the corner and is prone to that one, gigantic, awful inning.

[toonsterwu]

haven't the padres been extending some guys to compete in the short term? they're trying to move headley (which conflicts with that idea but whatever). any chance whatsoever for a deal involving headley and garza? there was another rumor about the cubs looking for minor league 3b today, so maybe they'd be into that. garza would be a really good fit in petco, and his injury might not be as a big of a deal for a team thats already out of it.

 

and now i see that i am wsr

 

edit: for some reason i thought headley was 26

 

I've got high doubts that the Padres would have interest in adding Garza. I think their interests in moving Headley have as much to do with the fact that Gyorko is close to ready, and he really isn't ideal at 2nd base. Thus, with a cheap alternative at 3rd, if they feel like Gyorko can produce enough offensively, then moving Headley, in a seller's market (particularly for the position) makes some sense.

 

I wouldn't mind looking at Headley (largely because I think people forget that he was guy with good power potential in the minors, but changed his swing to adapt to Petco), but I doubt we get involved with that because the reports for what they are seeking is just ... enormous. I like Headley, but giving up that much to get him now makes zero sense.

 

yea, i don't usually get into the hypothetical trade stuff. i'm ashamed of myself.

 

don't be. I don't get why people get worked up about the hypotheticals here (I guess, the overabundance of them from certain posters don't help). It's the silly season right now, and hypothetical trades are part of the fun for fans, IMO, allowing us to bitch and moan about what could've been, or to tout what we got.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Even if we don't move Garza by Tuesday, we can put him through waivers. No way he'd make it through, but we could still make a deal with whoever claims him, and if not we pull him back and whatever happens in the winter happens. Granted, there's always the chance of one team claiming him for the sake of blocking another with no intention of trading for him, but we really don't lose anything.

[bhogg]

Not terrible keeping garza. He will be a good pitcher and if we are in a similar position next year, he will be a valuable trade piece again.

[davell]

Not terrible keeping garza. He will be a good pitcher and if we are in a similar position next year, he will be a valuable trade piece again.

With a lot less value than he has currently. The only way his value over the offseason approaches what it is right now, is if he pitches great the rest of the season.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Not terrible keeping garza. He will be a good pitcher and if we are in a similar position next year, he will be a valuable trade piece again.

With a lot less value than he has currently. The only way his value over the offseason approaches what it is right now, is if he pitches great the rest of the season.

 

Not necesarily. At this moment, the trade market for SP with team control could include JJ, Lee, and Shields. In the offseason, many thought that Matt Cain and Cole Hamels could be available as well, but they're locoed up. What many thought would be a very strong FA SP market next offseason is now more limited. Pitchers like McCarthy, Sanchez, Jackson, Peavy, and Marcum's prices will suddenly go up, with Greinke to only real elite option remaining, an the Angels may very well try to lock him up, considering how much they gave up for him. This should Garza a very valuable trade piece in the winter, assuming that he proves he's healthy the rest of thisseason.

[rawaction]

Cant copy and paste from my phone but Heyman tweeted that if Garza doesnt go this week, he will get traded in winter.

[davell]

He also threw today, throws off a mound on Monday and his wife gives birth Tuesday.

[Guest]

Cant copy and paste from my phone but Heyman tweeted that if Garza doesnt go this week, he will get traded in winter.

Looks like he gets traded in the winter. I really wish they would have traded him last winter.

[davell]

BTW, Rangers package for Greinke began with Buckel and Grimm. Didn't even want to include Perez, so I'd say they're not what we're looking for out of Garza.

[davell]

I asked Bruce on Twitter chances of a Garze trade and he responded with as minor as the injury is, it's still not highly likely.

[Gilby]

BTW, Rangers package for Greinke began with Buckel and Grimm. Didn't even want to include Perez, so I'd say they're not what we're looking for out of Garza.

 

You have to figure Garza has more value though.

[17 Seconds]

He also threw today, throws off a mound on Monday and his wife gives birth Tuesday.

 

@ESPNChiCubs: Garza threw on flat ground today. Bullpen on Monday.

 

could they bring other teams' scouts in to watch that?

[davell]

He also threw today, throws off a mound on Monday and his wife gives birth Tuesday.

 

@ESPNChiCubs: Garza threw on flat ground today. Bullpen on Monday.

 

could they bring other teams' scouts in to watch that?

I thought the same thing. No clue as to whether that's an unheard of practice or not. That said, I hope they do exactly that. Especially with Toronto fighting thru their injuries to the point they're still buyers.

[El Duderino]

Earlier today I jokingly tweeted Brett that I heard scouts were going to watch Garza's bullpen on Mon. I'd laugh my ass off if that actually happened.

[dew1679666265]

I know it's the minority view here, but I'm not the least bit disappointed that it appears Garza is staying. He's at worst a good pitcher (3.57 xFIP this year) and at best borderline elite (3.19 xFIP in 2011). This team needs talent at the major league level as badly as it does in the minors and maybe moreso. Any pitchers we would get in a Garza trade, we'd basically be hoping they'd turn into Garza eventually.

 

Extend Garza, hope things fall into place to still net Delgado for Dempster, and then build your rotation around Garza/Delgado/Shark/Wood. Bring Soto back next year, hope Marmol continues to turn it around, and try to move the two of them for more young pitching at next year's deadline. In the meantime, fish around on the FA market for upside buys (Liriano, Edwin Jackson) and if they pitch well, there's more young pitching to add to the ranks.

[XZero771679666304]

Earlier today I jokingly tweeted Brett that I heard scouts were going to watch Garza's bullpen on Mon. I'd laugh my ass off if that actually happened.

 

I'd be mildly surprised if at least a few didn't show up.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Found this quote over at MLBTradeRumors:

 

Cole Hamels, Zack Greinke and Matt Garza are off the trade market, which leaves Josh Johnson at or near the top of the list of potentially available starting pitchers.

Who said Garza was off the trade market?

[Sammys Boombox]

Nothing to add here. Just asking the board's opinions. Obviously it depends on what other moves we see, but generally if Garza gets dealt this winter what do you guys believe would be the first year the Cubs would actually contend? You have to have some starting pitching before you start adding to your starting rotation so it becomes a contending rotation. I feel like we're talking about 2015 at the earliest. Am I way off?