Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[apete6]

Garza and Vitters/Jackson for Upton/top pitching prospect of their choice (Corbin--or Skaggs :D ) would have been amazing. In the offseason maybe?

[Guest]

just pray that garza stays healthy and pitches well the rest of the way.

[davell]

Yeah, Jed all but said he'll be gone over the winter in some quotes earlier.

[A New Era]

At this point, I would be almost happy with a straight up swap for a player that is just about ready for MLB, someone who could slot right into the rotation in '13 and has an upside of Garza + a bit higher. Just one more likely to reach it.

[Guest]

Yeah, Jed all but said he'll be gone over the winter in some quotes earlier.

 

link please?

[davell]

Yeah, Jed all but said he'll be gone over the winter in some quotes earlier.

 

link please?

I'm on my cell, so can't link. There's a Patrick Mooney article on CSN that has quotes from Hoyer saying it was unfortunate that Garza couldn't pitch before the deadline and it hampered the calls, as teams were hesitant, since they're trying to win a WS. In another article(maybe Padilla?) He's also quoted with the same line of we're in the process of turning short term assets into longterm ones, but it wasn't said(possibly just the context, but doubtful) that an extension was a possibility. The general tone of the article acted like 2015 was the target year(year later than I want), but that was speculation, not from Hoyer.

[dew1679666265]

I'm on my cell, so can't link. There's a Patrick Mooney article on CSN that has quotes from Hoyer saying it was unfortunate that Garza couldn't pitch before the deadline and it hampered the calls, as teams were hesitant, since they're trying to win a WS. In another article(maybe Padilla?) He's also quoted with the same line of we're in the process of turning short term assets into longterm ones, but it wasn't said(possibly just the context, but doubtful) that an extension was a possibility. The general tone of the article acted like 2015 was the target year(year later than I want), but that was speculation, not from Hoyer.

 

That's incredibly disappointing. Both that the apparent plans are to tank until 2015 and that the front office seems so intent on trading Garza. Even if they would prefer to trade Garza (which I think is pretty obviously the case), I really hope they don't get so dead-set on it that they take a lesser deal. He's a very good pitcher and will be 30 when 2013 starts, that's hardly a "short term asset" unless we decide that he is.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm on my cell, so can't link. There's a Patrick Mooney article on CSN that has quotes from Hoyer saying it was unfortunate that Garza couldn't pitch before the deadline and it hampered the calls, as teams were hesitant, since they're trying to win a WS. In another article(maybe Padilla?) He's also quoted with the same line of we're in the process of turning short term assets into longterm ones, but it wasn't said(possibly just the context, but doubtful) that an extension was a possibility. The general tone of the article acted like 2015 was the target year(year later than I want), but that was speculation, not from Hoyer.

 

That's incredibly disappointing. Both that the apparent plans are to tank until 2015 and that the front office seems so intent on trading Garza. Even if they would prefer to trade Garza (which I think is pretty obviously the case), I really hope they don't get so dead-set on it that they take a lesser deal. He's a very good pitcher and will be 30 when 2013 starts, that's hardly a "short term asset" unless we decide that he is.

 

He's only under contract for 2013. That's pretty close to the definition of a short-term asset.

 

But yeah, I think it's becoming the apparent that the rebuilding plans are a lot more audacious that we hoped. This isn't "catch our breath and get rolling next offseason." This is a complete, utter teardown.

[Guest]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

[Guest]

I'm on my cell, so can't link. There's a Patrick Mooney article on CSN that has quotes from Hoyer saying it was unfortunate that Garza couldn't pitch before the deadline and it hampered the calls, as teams were hesitant, since they're trying to win a WS. In another article(maybe Padilla?) He's also quoted with the same line of we're in the process of turning short term assets into longterm ones, but it wasn't said(possibly just the context, but doubtful) that an extension was a possibility. The general tone of the article acted like 2015 was the target year(year later than I want), but that was speculation, not from Hoyer.

 

That's incredibly disappointing. Both that the apparent plans are to tank until 2015 and that the front office seems so intent on trading Garza. Even if they would prefer to trade Garza (which I think is pretty obviously the case), I really hope they don't get so dead-set on it that they take a lesser deal. He's a very good pitcher and will be 30 when 2013 starts, that's hardly a "short term asset" unless we decide that he is.

 

 

How long do you see him being a very good pitcher? Much more than 2-3 years?

 

I think Garza is going to expect far more than he's worth in an extension and we're best off converting him into more young assets. I also think his performance going forward will be closer to 2012 and pre-2011 than 2011.

[dew1679666265]

He's only under contract for 2013. That's pretty close to the definition of a short-term asset.

 

Contract extensions are still allowed, hence why I said "unless we decide he is." He's still young enough this offseason for a 5-year or so deal to make sense, so we shouldn't rule that option out.

 

But yeah, I think it's becoming the apparent that the rebuilding plans are a lot more audacious that we hoped. This isn't "catch our breath and get rolling next offseason." This is a complete, utter teardown.

 

Yeah, I've been hoping that we weren't doing the full video game rebuild, but every bit of evidence so far points to an overly lengthy rebuild.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

[dew1679666265]

How long do you see him being a very good pitcher? Much more than 2-3 years?

 

If we sign him to a 5-year extension, I think he can be very good for 3 of those years pretty easily. It wouldn't shock me if he pitched well until he was 34, though.

 

I think Garza is going to expect far more than he's worth in an extension and we're best off converting him into more young assets. I also think his performance going forward will be closer to 2012 and pre-2011 than 2011.

 

He's been a better pitcher this year than he was prior to being a Cub. His K/9 is in line with his pre-2011 career best while his BB/9 is better than last year's level. His GB% is in line with last year and he's posting the second best xFIP of his career, with it being much closer to his 2011 xFIP than his previous ones. The only real disturbing stat is the HR rates and then the poor defense is holding down his value a bit.

 

I'm not certain he's a 5+ WAR pitcher consistently, but his peripherals indicate he's a lot closer to 2011 Matt Garza than pre-Cub Matt Garza.

[Guest]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

 

Maybe, although for 2013 the value of Vizcaino and Chapman might not be all that different than Maholm's 200 IP of 2 WAR. Considering how many of their trades have brought MLB or near MLB talent(Vizcaino, Wood, Rizzo, Delgado*, Stewart, Volstad), I'd want to see what the deal for Garza or Soriano looks like before taking it as a white flag.

 

And even then, incremental improvements that are not enough yet is long ways away from Greenberg's "3 years away minimum, and maybe more" tone in the article.

[mookie]

I still truly believe the 2013 Cubs will be a better team record wise after all of the conversions have been executed.

[Andy]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

To be somewhat fair, does anyone really expect Soriano to be very useful next season? He will be 37 by then, and it's pretty amazing that the Cubs are even getting reasonable production from him this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

 

Maybe, although for 2013 the value of Vizcaino and Chapman might not be all that different than Maholm's 200 IP of 2 WAR. Considering how many of their trades have brought MLB or near MLB talent(Vizcaino, Wood, Rizzo, Delgado*, Stewart, Volstad), I'd want to see what the deal for Garza or Soriano looks like before taking it as a white flag.

 

And even then, incremental improvements that are not enough yet is long ways away from Greenberg's "3 years away minimum, and maybe more" tone in the article.

 

Regardless of the tone of some article, the Cubs have put themselves in a very difficult position to even pretend to try to win in 2013, and that's really all that matters. They are making this an unnecessarily long and painful process.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

To be somewhat fair, does anyone really expect Soriano to be very useful next season? He will be 37 by then, and it's pretty amazing that the Cubs are even getting reasonable production from him this year.

 

Well, yeah. I think if he's been this good this season, I don't see why you'd create a hole in LF for next season if you expect to try to be competitive.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still truly believe the 2013 Cubs will be a better team record wise after all of the conversions have been executed.

 

Better than what?

[Guest]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

 

Maybe, although for 2013 the value of Vizcaino and Chapman might not be all that different than Maholm's 200 IP of 2 WAR. Considering how many of their trades have brought MLB or near MLB talent(Vizcaino, Wood, Rizzo, Delgado*, Stewart, Volstad), I'd want to see what the deal for Garza or Soriano looks like before taking it as a white flag.

 

And even then, incremental improvements that are not enough yet is long ways away from Greenberg's "3 years away minimum, and maybe more" tone in the article.

 

Regardless of the tone of some article, the Cubs have put themselves in a very difficult position to even pretend to try to win in 2013, and that's really all that matters. They are making this an unnecessarily long and painful process.

 

I'd say that your feelings on that are going to be unchanged from the beginning of 2012 to now, unless you viewed Maholm as a key cog in the rotation. The implication being made is that the deadline deals extended out the timeframe to competitiveness, or acted as some sort of implicit concession from the front office, and I have a hard time seeing that at this point.

[jersey cubs fan]

unless you viewed Maholm as a key cog in the rotation.

 

How was he not a key cog in the rotation?

[mookie]

I still truly believe the 2013 Cubs will be a better team record wise after all of the conversions have been executed.

 

Better than what?

 

Than this season's team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

All the cogs are key, because our 2013 rotation is rapidly becoming cog-light.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This year's team is on real and pythagorean pace to win 68 games. It'd be hard to put a team that on paper didn't project to be better. We've got replacement level or worse performance from three positions in aggregate. Ian Stewart aside, I doubt they'll fill many of those positions with players who you'd expect to be worse than that.

[mookie]

The 2015 stuff was Jon Greenberg writing Jon Greenberg things. There were lots of quotes from Hoyer in that article, and not a single one mentioned anything beyond this season, never mind plans for future seasons.

 

I think the trade of Maholm and the intention to trade Garza and Soriano say more about the 2013 intentions than any quote could.

 

Maybe, although for 2013 the value of Vizcaino and Chapman might not be all that different than Maholm's 200 IP of 2 WAR. Considering how many of their trades have brought MLB or near MLB talent(Vizcaino, Wood, Rizzo, Delgado*, Stewart, Volstad), I'd want to see what the deal for Garza or Soriano looks like before taking it as a white flag.

 

And even then, incremental improvements that are not enough yet is long ways away from Greenberg's "3 years away minimum, and maybe more" tone in the article.

 

Regardless of the tone of some article, the Cubs have put themselves in a very difficult position to even pretend to try to win in 2013, and that's really all that matters. They are making this an unnecessarily long and painful process.

 

Why do you guys still harp on and on about this being an unnecessarily long and painful process? The first season under their tenure isn't even over yet. There is so much over reaction on this board sometimes.