Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[CUBZ99]

Levine stated in his chat that he thought the Reds were more likely to move Votto than Alonso.

 

Does anybody think Garza or Garza/plus another player would get it done?

[dew1679666265]

Jackson was only 27 years old this past season; so he's entering his age-28 season (he will only turn 29 in September). Regardless, 29 is not that old for a pitcher. (Which you surely agree considering you're the biggest advocate of signing a pitcher entering his age-31 season; whether that pitcher is better or not.)

 

28/29 isn't that old for a pitcher if you're thinking about whether he'll decline. However, if you're looking at his chances of hitting his upside and you're likely going to be paying him as if he's already hit his upside (a Dempster-esque contract or bigger wouldn't surprise me), it's getting a little old for him to have not shown any more than he has.

 

As for Wilson, not only is he a much better pitcher than Jackson - struck out roughly 1.5 batters per 9 in his career, has posted two seasons of greater WAR than anything Jackson ever has - but he also has less mileage on his arm than Jackson. Jackson has thrown just over 1,000 MLB innings and has never been consistently good, Wilson has tossed around 700 MLB innings and has been great in his only two years starting.

 

If we're going to overpay in money/contract this offseason, we need to overpay to stars, not guys who might be stars but have never shown that ability.

 

As for your second paragraph, I think I covered the fact that Jackson may/will not be a good value for the contract he might receive, unlike Stewart.

 

I just don't understand the comparison. With Stewart, there's upside with basically no risk (if there is any, you don't pursue him). With Jackson, there might be upside and there's a ton of risk.

[XZero771679666304]

I don't get the Stewart comparison either. They're very different cases.

 

I'm not high on the idea of Jackson, either. If he weren't going to command a fairly large contract, I'd think he was worth taking a shot on.

[davell]

My reasoning for why I like Jackson, especially if do trade Garza is that we'd be adding a mid rotation starter with upside. Yeah, we'd be losing a frontline starter in Garza, but monetarily we're basically in the same place as before these 2 moves. The key here is the return you're getting on Garza. If you're adding a Porcello and Turner. Or maybe an Ogando and Perez. Or whatever else. But, the key is you're adding a cheaper guy with frontline potential and more solid parts as well. And then, you've still got plenty of cash to throw around, if you really want to add Wilson or Darvish or make a trade for another bigtime arm.

[dew1679666265]

My reasoning for why I like Jackson, especially if do trade Garza is that we'd be adding a mid rotation starter with upside. Yeah, we'd be losing a frontline starter in Garza, but monetarily we're basically in the same place as before these 2 moves. The key here is the return you're getting on Garza. If you're adding a Porcello and Turner. Or maybe an Ogando and Perez. Or whatever else. But, the key is you're adding a cheaper guy with frontline potential and more solid parts as well. And then, you've still got plenty of cash to throw around, if you really want to add Wilson or Darvish or make a trade for another bigtime arm.

 

If Jackson comes at 3/36 or so, I have no real problem with him - if it doesn't hinder a possible Wilson/Darvish addition. If he gets into 4 years and/or the $15 million/year range, I lose interest really fast.

[XZero771679666304]

My reasoning for why I like Jackson, especially if do trade Garza is that we'd be adding a mid rotation starter with upside. Yeah, we'd be losing a frontline starter in Garza, but monetarily we're basically in the same place as before these 2 moves. The key here is the return you're getting on Garza. If you're adding a Porcello and Turner. Or maybe an Ogando and Perez. Or whatever else. But, the key is you're adding a cheaper guy with frontline potential and more solid parts as well. And then, you've still got plenty of cash to throw around, if you really want to add Wilson or Darvish or make a trade for another bigtime arm.

 

If Jackson comes at 3/36 or so, I have no real problem with him - if it doesn't hinder a possible Wilson/Darvish addition. If he gets into 4 years and/or the $15 million/year range, I lose interest really fast.

 

I'm in this spot as well. The FA SP class is pretty light this offseason, so I think it's likely Jackson will command quite a bit more than would be prudent to give him. I like Jackson, but he is an enigma of sorts. And at this stage in his career, I'm not at all confident he'll break out and become consistently really good.

[davell]

My reasoning for why I like Jackson, especially if do trade Garza is that we'd be adding a mid rotation starter with upside. Yeah, we'd be losing a frontline starter in Garza, but monetarily we're basically in the same place as before these 2 moves. The key here is the return you're getting on Garza. If you're adding a Porcello and Turner. Or maybe an Ogando and Perez. Or whatever else. But, the key is you're adding a cheaper guy with frontline potential and more solid parts as well. And then, you've still got plenty of cash to throw around, if you really want to add Wilson or Darvish or make a trade for another bigtime arm.

 

If Jackson comes at 3/36 or so, I have no real problem with him - if it doesn't hinder a possible Wilson/Darvish addition. If he gets into 4 years and/or the $15 million/year range, I lose interest really fast.

I agree. My main interest in him is tied to us moving Garza. If we move Garza, it's because I see us adding a frontline guy in the return and also have the ability to add another one through trade. Jackson becomes the 3. If we keep Garza, I can see us adding a guy through trade and also adding one thru FA as well. In that case, it's too much money for us to pay Jackson as a 4. So, for me, if we keep Garza, I'm wanting more than Jackson as an addition.

[dew1679666265]

I'm in this spot as well. The FA SP class is pretty light this offseason, so I think it's likely Jackson will command quite a bit more than would be prudent to give him. I like Jackson, but he is an enigma of sorts. And at this stage in his career, I'm not at all confident he'll break out and become consistently really good.

 

Yeah, I mentioned earlier I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him get a Dempster type contract (4/52, 13 mil AAV) and very possibly more than that. Especially if Darvish isn't posted this offseason. I think we need to target pitching this offseason (along with one of the big FA 1B), but if we're going to overpay for pitching, it needs to be elite pitching. Not the possibility of elite pitching.

[dew1679666265]

I agree. My main interest in him is tied to us moving Garza. If we move Garza, it's because I see us adding a frontline guy in the return and also have the ability to add another one through trade. Jackson becomes the 3. If we keep Garza, I can see us adding a guy through trade and also adding one thru FA as well. In that case, it's too much money for us to pay Jackson as a 4. So, for me, if we keep Garza, I'm wanting more than Jackson as an addition.

 

To me it's irrelevant whether we move Garza or not. Either way Jackson is likely to be overpaid and not likely to turn into the frontline pitcher that he'll likely be paid to be.

[davell]

The point you make about Darvish not being posted possibly is an excellent one. Jackson becomes the 2nd best starter in a market where there's a dozen teams in need probably. Jackson on a 4 or 5 year deal is NOT worth it, totally agree.

[Exile on Waveland]

Jackson was only 27 years old this past season; so he's entering his age-28 season (he will only turn 29 in September). Regardless, 29 is not that old for a pitcher. (Which you surely agree considering you're the biggest advocate of signing a pitcher entering his age-31 season; whether that pitcher is better or not.)

 

28/29 isn't that old for a pitcher if you're thinking about whether he'll decline. However, if you're looking at his chances of hitting his upside and you're likely going to be paying him as if he's already hit his upside (a Dempster-esque contract or bigger wouldn't surprise me), it's getting a little old for him to have not shown any more than he has.

 

As for Wilson, not only is he a much better pitcher than Jackson - struck out roughly 1.5 batters per 9 in his career, has posted two seasons of greater WAR than anything Jackson ever has - but he also has less mileage on his arm than Jackson. Jackson has thrown just over 1,000 MLB innings and has never been consistently good, Wilson has tossed around 700 MLB innings and has been great in his only two years starting.

 

If we're going to overpay in money/contract this offseason, we need to overpay to stars, not guys who might be stars but have never shown that ability.

 

As for your second paragraph, I think I covered the fact that Jackson may/will not be a good value for the contract he might receive, unlike Stewart.

 

I just don't understand the comparison. With Stewart, there's upside with basically no risk (if there is any, you don't pursue him). With Jackson, there might be upside and there's a ton of risk.

 

First, again, I stated Wilson has been a superior pitcher. There was no reason to prove something I already conceded. I would mention, however, that Wilson was not consistently good until his 28 season and did not have consecutive good years as a starting pitcher until 30 -- so he must have improved at around the age Jackson is now. I'm also rather unconvinced by 300 less innings -- I could as easily argue, as I have, that just means he has not proven he can consistently carry a starter's workload.

 

Second, I distinguished Stewart because he'll be cheap. It's not a perfect comparison, I acknowledged. The reason I brought him up, though, is that people are willing to look past his struggles because he's talented (and he'll come cheap, I'll say it again). In a similar vein, I'm willing to look past some of Jackson's performance (though again, WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1, is not too shabby), until he becomes way too expensive. If we look at nothing but Stewart's numbers, he's worthless, even at a low price. If we look at nothing but Jackson's numbers, he'll likely be overpaid. A lot of posters think there might be more to Stewart; I think there might be more to Jackson.

[KingCubsFan]

28/29 isn't that old for a pitcher if you're thinking about whether he'll decline. However, if you're looking at his chances of hitting his upside and you're likely going to be paying him as if he's already hit his upside (a Dempster-esque contract or bigger wouldn't surprise me), it's getting a little old for him to have not shown any more than he has.

 

As for Wilson, not only is he a much better pitcher than Jackson - struck out roughly 1.5 batters per 9 in his career, has posted two seasons of greater WAR than anything Jackson ever has - but he also has less mileage on his arm than Jackson. Jackson has thrown just over 1,000 MLB innings and has never been consistently good, Wilson has tossed around 700 MLB innings and has been great in his only two years starting.

 

If we're going to overpay in money/contract this offseason, we need to overpay to stars, not guys who might be stars but have never shown that ability.

Wilson is obviously the better pitcher, but interestingly:

Jackson 2010: 3.86 FIP, 3.71 xFIP

Jackson 2011: 3.55 FIP, 3.73 xFIP

 

Wilson 2010: 3.56 FIP, 4.06 FIP

 

Wilson's 2011 season obviously blows anything Jackson has ever done out of the water. But it will be interesting to see the contracts each player gets, as I don't think Wilson is worth 8-10 million more than Jackson. Although Jackson remained pretty stagnant even with two of the best pitching coaches in the game in 2010, it would be interesting to see how he does with a pitching coach that emphasizes strikeouts more than Cooper or Duncan does. It's too bad we don't have Rothschild anymore, because I think Jackson would be a great project for him.

[dew1679666265]

First, again, I stated Wilson has been a superior pitcher. There was no reason to prove something I already conceded. I would mention, however, that Wilson was not consistently good until his 28 season and did not have consecutive good years as a starting pitcher until 30 -- so he must have improved at around the age Jackson is now. I'm also rather unconvinced by 300 less innings -- I could as easily argue, as I have, that just means he has not proven he can consistently carry a starter's workload.

 

The problem with looking for consistency with Wilson is that he was a reliever until the 2010 season and relievers, no matter how good, are generally very inconsistent. You have a couple or three bad outings and your overall numbers are disproportionately affected. So we don't know if he would have been more consistent earlier as a starter or not, but we know Jackson has not been consistent yet as he enters his age 28/29 season.

 

And I did acknowledge that if we could get Jackson for something like 3/36, I might be ok with it. If Theo/Jed decide to pursue him up to that point, I won't complain about it. However, everything in this market and in free agency in general points to Jackson getting much more than that - something like a Dempster contract or bigger. That's far too much for me. As long as the price stays low, go ahead and pursue him, though.

 

Second, I distinguished Stewart because he'll be cheap. It's not a perfect comparison, I acknowledged. The reason I brought him up, though, is that people are willing to look past his struggles because he's talented (and he'll come cheap, I'll say it again). In a similar vein, I'm willing to look past some of Jackson's performance (though again, WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1, is not too shabby), until he becomes way too expensive. If we look at nothing but Stewart's numbers, he's worthless, even at a low price. If we look at nothing but Jackson's numbers, he'll likely be overpaid. A lot of posters think there might be more to Stewart; I think there might be more to Jackson.

 

The point about Stewart being cheap is the key, though. I'm not opposed to signing Jackson if we could get him at the same price as Stewart - in fact I'd love that deal. Problem is, as you acknowledged, Jackson is going to be far more expensive and carry far more risk with him (because of the contract) than Stewart and that's the point that invalidates the comparison. I'd have no interest in Stewart if we had to pay him real money, just like I have no interest in Jackson if we have to go above something like 3/36. The key difference is, however, Stewart's likely to come that cheaply, Jackson is not.

[dew1679666265]

Wilson is obviously the better pitcher, but interestingly:

Jackson 2010: 3.86 FIP, 3.71 xFIP

Jackson 2011: 3.55 FIP, 3.73 xFIP

 

Wilson 2010: 3.56 FIP, 4.06 FIP

 

Wilson's 2011 season obviously blows anything Jackson has ever done out of the water. But it will be interesting to see the contracts each player gets, as I don't think Wilson is worth 8-10 million more than Jackson. Although Jackson remained pretty stagnant even with two of the best pitching coaches in the game in 2010, it would be interesting to see how he does with a pitching coach that emphasizes strikeouts more than Cooper or Duncan does. It's too bad we don't have Rothschild anymore, because I think Jackson would be a great project for him.

 

I really don't think the difference is going to be 8-10 million. I'm expecting Jackson to get something similar to a Dempster contract (4/52+) and I think Wilson's price will lower a bit more to something like 5/90. That'd be about a $5 million difference in AAV at most. If Wilson's contract is bigger than that, I have no interest in him either.

 

As for the numbers, those are definitely interesting numbers you posted, however Jackson only strikes out about 6.8-7.5 guys per 9 innings, while Wilson is above 8 K/9. Wilson's WAR numbers have been better as well and he's shown considerable improvement from year one as a starter to year two.

[davell]

So if the Rangers put Ogando and Moreland on the table, is that enough? And can Moreland play a legit RF, because I wouldn't consider this unless he can. Still, I think it'd take them adding Perez or Olt to the mix to make me bite. But, it's intriguing.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Levine stated in his chat that he thought the Reds were more likely to move Votto than Alonso.

 

Does anybody think Garza or Garza/plus another player would get it done?

 

I think that the other player would have to be someone like B. Jax, Szczur, or McNutt. The Reds likely wouldn't want to send him to us, but they say they want a front end starter, and of the teams with front end starters for sale (A's, Rays, White Sox if you conider Danks front end) The Cubs are the best fit because we're the only one who can afford to extend Votto and I doubt that The Rays or A's would deal Shields, Gio,or Cahill for a 1 year rental and The Sox don't have room for him unless they can find a way to move Dunn or Konerko. Then again, there's the possibility of the Giants sending them Cain.

[davell]

I have zero interest in Votto in an offseason where Pujols and Fielder are out there. Votto is going to cost very serious pieces and using them on a 1B when we can go sign one and use those pieces for other holes, makes no sense at all.

[Brett]

So if the Rangers put Ogando and Moreland on the table, is that enough? And can Moreland play a legit RF, because I wouldn't consider this unless he can. Still, I think it'd take them adding Perez or Olt to the mix to make me bite. But, it's intriguing.

 

Ogando is a really interesting one. Converted a starter in his late 20s upon arriving in the bigs. He's already 28, but isn't even eligible for arbitration for another couple years - talk about having a guy's peak years for cheap. On the other hand, he's still not quite as "established" as you'd like a 28-year-old to be. How exactly do you value a player like that? Roll the dice, I guess.

 

If the Rangers offered something like Ogando, Moreland, and Olt, I don't see how the Cubs could justify saying no.

[JeffH]

If the Rangers offered something like Ogando, Moreland, and Olt, I don't see how the Cubs could justify saying noyes.

[davell]

I agree with Ace. Ogando and Moreland offer cheap production and upside, especially with Ogando. Adding a top 100 prospect to that, I think I'd be in. That said, I'd take Profar and either Perez or Olt over the major league friendly package just mentioned.

[Guest]

So if the Rangers put Ogando and Moreland on the table, is that enough? And can Moreland play a legit RF, because I wouldn't consider this unless he can. Still, I think it'd take them adding Perez or Olt to the mix to make me bite. But, it's intriguing.

 

I don't really have any interest in Moreland. Something like Holland, Olt, and a flyer, or Ogando, Perez, and Olt; that would work for me.

[davell]

So if the Rangers put Ogando and Moreland on the table, is that enough? And can Moreland play a legit RF, because I wouldn't consider this unless he can. Still, I think it'd take them adding Perez or Olt to the mix to make me bite. But, it's intriguing.

 

I don't really have any interest in Moreland. Something like Holland, Olt, and a flyer, or Ogando, Perez, and Olt; that would work for me.

I agree that I'd much rather have Olt and Perez than Moreland, if that was a potential offer. But I could see Moreland giving us decent to solid production for cheap, kind of like we hope or had hoped Colvin would do. In the end, Ogando intrigues me enough to pull the trigger and take Moreland and an Olt or Perez, if it came down to it and Detroit doesn't have Porcello and Turner on the table. I guess the Yanks could come up with an extremely attractive package as well, but if that Texas package was the best offer, it'd still get me to pull the trigger.

[soonercub]

If the Cubs decide that they want to spend their free agent money on pitching and fill 1st base and add depth via trading Garza.

 

Do you prefer a package of:

 

Moreland, Ogando and another spec (not a top 5)

 

or

 

Montero, Banuelos and others from the Yankees?

[Post Count Padder]

If the Cubs decide that they want to spend their free agent money on pitching and fill 1st base and add depth via trading Garza.

 

Do you prefer a package of:

 

Moreland, Ogando and another spec (not a top 5)

 

or

 

Montero, Banuelos and others from the Yankess?

I read the Yankees would have to be blown away to part with Montero, but they'd deal Banuelos, Austin Romine (their other top catching prospect) and any other necessary pieces in a possible deal. Given that, I don't know if Romine is an improvement over Welington Castillo (other than he's 2 years younger). The Yankees are definitely interested, but I don't think they budge on Montero. They were almost against trading him for Cliff Lee, let alone for Garza.

[Clem Fandango]

When the hell did Moreland and Ogando become ace bait?