Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[dew1679666265]

I think davell acknowledged that the Diamondbacks package (Corbin/Bradley) is probably wishful thinking, but the upside of Bradley, a guy with legitimate TOR stuff, plus a ready arm with mid-rotation ability in Corbin would be a knockout trade. Doesn't mean these guys WILL pan out, but I think that would be an extremely good scenario, but I doubt that will happen.

 

I realize stats aren't the be-all, end-all in the minors - especially the low minors - and you know better than me about Bradley's stuff, but I'd be really concerned about making a guy the headliner of a Garza deal who's walking almost 6 guys per 9. I have no doubt that he's got TOR potential if you say he does, but he's also a long way away from the majors and already has a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved. I have strong reservations about him being the centerpiece of a Garza deal.

[toonsterwu]

Wait ... are you saying that if Garza shows no willingness to sign and definitely wants to test FA, then they should just keep him for a year, let him walk in FA, and take picks? I'd call that a bad idea in all honesty. You would further delay whatever rebuilding plan is sketched out, rather than getting some assets for the higher levels.

 

I'm saying that I would expect the Garza camp to be posturing right now, just as I would expect the Theo regime to be trying to get Garza to sign an extremely team friendly deal. If Garza is saying that he wants to test FA, there's a very good chance it's a negotiating ploy. A large number of experts, if I recall correctly, were saying that Hamels was a likely candidate to test FA this coming offseason and the Phillies ended up signing him to a (relatively) reasonable contract.

 

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't shop Garza. I'm saying don't take a lesser deal just to trade him because you're afraid you might not be able to re-sign him during the season. We've got more than a full calendar year to negotiate with him, if Garza's agent isn't throwing around the idea of testing free agency right now then Garza needs to fire him.

 

Sure, but I think where we're drawing a difference right now is related to expectations. I think you've set the expectation bar and what would constitute a good deal for Garza rather high. Expecting two high upside arms for a guy like Garza for one year seems ... high. I guess the issue is how we define what a "good deal" is. I guess, very loosely speaking, for me, a good deal for Garza this off-season (to be clear, I would hope for better), would be something like 1 close to ready major league option that either looks to have mid-rotation ceiling or is a potential solid positional starter plus 1 high upside gamble in the lower levels.

 

If we get a good deal for Garza and there's little movement on negotiations, I think Theo/Jed would be making the right course of action in dealing Garza, rather than taking the risk of carrying him into the season and having him get hurt.

 

Now ... if they feel like there's some progress on negotiations, then okay, that changes the equation.

 

One thing we haven't really touched upon is whether or not Garza might change his opinion on an extension after this latest setback. Maybe they become more amenable to an extension, out of fear of an injury. A lot of things to figure out in the coming months, that's for sure.

[toonsterwu]

I think davell acknowledged that the Diamondbacks package (Corbin/Bradley) is probably wishful thinking, but the upside of Bradley, a guy with legitimate TOR stuff, plus a ready arm with mid-rotation ability in Corbin would be a knockout trade. Doesn't mean these guys WILL pan out, but I think that would be an extremely good scenario, but I doubt that will happen.

 

I realize stats aren't the be-all, end-all in the minors - especially the low minors - and you know better than me about Bradley's stuff, but I'd be really concerned about making a guy the headliner of a Garza deal who's walking almost 6 guys per 9. I have no doubt that he's got TOR potential if you say he does, but he's also a long way away from the majors and already has a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved. I have strong reservations about him being the centerpiece of a Garza deal.

 

Sure, but in that hypothetical scenario that davell threw out, you'd be getting a ready lefty arm with a mid-rotation ceiling, which would be the "balance" to the risk with Bradley.

[davell]

Dew, in case you didn't know, Bradley is one year out of HS, was one of the top QB prospects in the country, and throws in the high 90's. His upside is the single highest of any player I just mentioned and it's probably not all that close. I understand wanting someone closer to the majors, but Bradley probably has one of the 5 best arms in all of the minors.

[toonsterwu]

Dew, in case you didn't know, Bradley is one year out of HS, was one of the top QB prospects in the country, and throws in the high 90's. His upside is the single highest of any player I just mentioned and it's probably not all that close. I understand wanting someone closer to the majors, but Bradley probably has one of the 5 best arms in all of the minors.

 

How are you defining "best arms"? It might sound like a small difference, but I can buy top 10, but not sure about top 5. Maybe ... but Bundy, Cole, Tailion, Walker, Fernandez would seem to have the quality of Bradley's arm while being more polished. If you just want to talk raw arm ability, Luis Heredia is probably in the discussion. If we're talking uniqueness of arm, a lefty like Skaggs is arguably a "better arm".

[davell]

Dew, in case you didn't know, Bradley is one year out of HS, was one of the top QB prospects in the country, and throws in the high 90's. His upside is the single highest of any player I just mentioned and it's probably not all that close. I understand wanting someone closer to the majors, but Bradley probably has one of the 5 best arms in all of the minors.

 

How are you defining "best arms"? It might sound like a small difference, but I can buy top 10, but not sure about top 5. Maybe ... but Bundy, Cole, Tailion, Walker, Fernandez would seem to have the quality of Bradley's arm while being more polished. If you just want to talk raw arm ability, Luis Heredia is probably in the discussion. If we're talking uniqueness of arm, a lefty like Skaggs is arguably a "better arm".

Touche. I didn't actually list guys out, won't argue any of those guys, and I'd throw Bauer in there too. Top 10 still should make our case pretty solidly.

[dew1679666265]

Sure, but I think where we're drawing a difference right now is related to expectations. I think you've set the expectation bar and what would constitute a good deal for Garza rather high. Expecting two high upside arms for a guy like Garza for one year seems ... high. I guess the issue is how we define what a "good deal" is. I guess, very loosely speaking, for me, a good deal for Garza this off-season (to be clear, I would hope for better), would be something like 1 close to ready major league option that either looks to have mid-rotation ceiling or is a potential solid positional starter plus 1 high upside gamble in the lower levels.

 

A "good" deal to me is 1 high upside, major league ready arm as the centerpiece and then a secondary piece of a lower level, mid rotation type guy. I'd be pushing right now for the 2 high upside arms, but could be talked down from that in time. Garza isn't the pitcher he was in 2011, but he's closer to that than he is to the pre-Cub version of Garza (if you believe in peripherals). To me, we have a relatively young, TOR starter and we don't need to trade him. If you don't need to trade him, then you need to ensure (as much as you can) that you're getting a replacement in return. If that replacement is in A ball, then there's way too much doubt involved.

 

If we get a good deal for Garza and there's little movement on negotiations, I think Theo/Jed would be making the right course of action in dealing Garza, rather than taking the risk of carrying him into the season and having him get hurt.

 

Now ... if they feel like there's some progress on negotiations, then okay, that changes the equation.

 

One thing we haven't really touched upon is whether or not Garza might change his opinion on an extension after this latest setback. Maybe they become more amenable to an extension, out of fear of an injury. A lot of things to figure out in the coming months, that's for sure.

 

That's the biggest reason I'm in favor of keeping demands very high - it means basically nothing what either side is saying right now. If Garza's agent is earning his pay, then he's threatening every day that Garza wants to test FA. If the Theo regime is worth what they're being paid, they're shopping him around and trying to get him on the most team friendly deal possible.

 

Way too much can change between now and a full calendar year later when Garza will actually hit FA for us to settle for a lower offer now. Over the past few months all we've heard was that Hamels wanted to test FA and he wanted a 7-8 year deal. He ended signing for a relatively reasonable 6 year contract. If we're going to deal Garza now, it needs to be one that strongly favors us.

[dew1679666265]

Dew, in case you didn't know, Bradley is one year out of HS, was one of the top QB prospects in the country, and throws in the high 90's. His upside is the single highest of any player I just mentioned and it's probably not all that close. I understand wanting someone closer to the majors, but Bradley probably has one of the 5 best arms in all of the minors.

 

I didn't know those specifics, but I did know he's a very high upside guy. My concern is that while there's a ton of reward with him, there's also a ton of risk. If we're getting just a mid-rotation guy as the secondary piece, I want the primary piece (which Bradley would be) to be more of a sure thing. As great as Bradley's potential is, there's a very real chance that all we'd get out of the Garza trade would be a better version of Travis Wood if Bradley flames out. I'm not satisfied with that.

[El Duderino]

I'm with Dew on this one. I'd much prefer Doubront/Barnes, or even Doubront/Owens.

[toonsterwu]

Well, the thing is, very few teams are going to fork over high upside ready/close to ready arms. There's simply far more value in having the rights to those guys for 6 years than 1 year of Garza. It's not impossible, but I find that to be quite tough to do in the off-season (I would think there's a greater chance of that happening at mid-season next year, than this winter, because some team could be desperate enough to go the way the ... say ... Giants and Indians did last year when they forked over Wheeler and Pomeranz for hopes at a run).

 

_____

 

You make it sound like the Phillies got Hamels at a discount. He got one of the richest contracts for a SP in MLB history.

[dew1679666265]

Sure, but in that hypothetical scenario that davell threw out, you'd be getting a ready lefty arm with a mid-rotation ceiling, which would be the "balance" to the risk with Bradley.

 

But if Bradley flames out (a very realistic scenario), then all we have to show for Garza - a TOR pitcher - is a mid-rotation guy. I'd be looking at guys like (these are comps, probably not these specific players) Delgado/Skaggs/Bauer who are high upside guys and either in the majors or close. Then you get the mid-rotation guy who's further away. If you can't get that, then you re-sign Garza.

[davell]

Pretty sizable difference in upsides of those guys. Garza's not nearly good enough to getting a Bauer or probably Skaggs back as the main piece or even in a one for one. If he had more years of control, then MAYBE something like Skaggs is realistic. But one year of Garza is not bringing back a top 20 prospect in baseball.

[El Duderino]

Pretty sizable difference in upsides of those guys. Garza's not nearly good enough to getting a Bauer or probably Skaggs back as the main piece or even in a one for one. If he had more years of control, then MAYBE something like Skaggs is realistic. But one year of Garza is not bringing back a top 20 prospect in baseball.

 

True, but in the offseason it would be possible for him to work out an extension with the team he's traded to, almost like a sign and trade type deal.

[dew1679666265]

Well, the thing is, very few teams are going to fork over high upside ready/close to ready arms. There's simply far more value in having the rights to those guys for 6 years than 1 year of Garza. It's not impossible, but I find that to be quite tough to do in the off-season (I would think there's a greater chance of that happening at mid-season next year, than this winter, because some team could be desperate enough to go the way the ... say ... Giants and Indians did last year when they forked over Wheeler and Pomeranz for hopes at a run).

 

So if teams aren't willing to give what we demand this offseason, then keep him and try to work out an extension. If we make no progress on extending him by next year's deadline, then work on trading him again and try to get a desperate team to bite. We had Randall Delgado for half a season of Dempster this year, there's no reason we can't get the equivalent of Delgado plus more for Garza at next year's deadline if it comes to that.

 

You make it sound like the Phillies got Hamels at a discount. He got one of the richest contracts for a SP in MLB history.

 

I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Hamels is one of the best pitchers in the majors and he's still relatively young (29 next year). He got a very big contract but one that is somewhat reasonable when you consider his ability and age (he'll still only be 34 when the contract ends). It's not a discount by any means, but it's not really overpaying either (unless you're just scared to ever give a pitcher a 6 year contract). Listening to reports leading up to Hamels accepting the deal, it sounded like the Phillies were going to have to overpay severely for him. We're hearing similar things with Garza right now, that he's asking for more than he's worth and he wants Matt Cain money. It wouldn't shock me if we keep hearing that up to next year's deadline and then we see Garza sign a much more reasonable (i.e. not a discount, but not an overpay) contract by next year's deadline.

[dew1679666265]

Pretty sizable difference in upsides of those guys. Garza's not nearly good enough to getting a Bauer or probably Skaggs back as the main piece or even in a one for one. If he had more years of control, then MAYBE something like Skaggs is realistic. But one year of Garza is not bringing back a top 20 prospect in baseball.

 

I was afraid somebody would get hung up on the specific names, that's why I prefaced what I said by explaining that they were meant more as comps and not that I was saying we should target those specific players. There's a big gap between them specifically, but the consistent in all three is that they're all TOR, high upside arms who are pretty close to the majors (or there already). If we can get a borderline TOR guy (like Delgado, who I've seen listed as #2 type upside) then I want a little better secondary piece, but if we can get a clearcut TOR type guy then I'd take a lesser secondary piece (or maybe none if the primary guy is good enough, that's another debate though).

 

The key is, I want a guy who's close to or in the majors and has TOR upside if I'm going to trade a 28 (29 next year) year old, TOR pitcher who I have the money and ability to re-sign. The idea is, if we trade Garza we're not planning to contend for the next year or two, but a team acquiring Garza probably is. Thus, they get a legitimate TOR pitcher who's pitching at that level right now who can help them win today and tomorrow and we get a guy who likely will become that, but isn't quite there yet.

[dew1679666265]

True, but in the offseason it would be possible for him to work out an extension with the team he's traded to, almost like a sign and trade type deal.

 

Right, it's for reasons like this that we shouldn't be setting artificial deadlines on ourselves to make a decision on a guy like Garza. There's a lot of time between today and the trade deadline next year. It's plenty of time for us to work out a deal with a team and then that team work out a contract extension with Garza so that they ensure he's not a rental. If we start to get fidgety and insist on trading him this offseason just to ensure we get something, then we're all but guaranteeing we won't get maximum value. And there's no reason for a team in our position with our front office to not get maximum value.

[davell]

Dew, I guess my point here is any TOR arms that are currently in the upper minors are all top 20ish type prospects and a team isn't going to give one up for Garza, most likely not even one for one. I guess it's possible if you find a ghy with injury issues, like a Casey Crosby, maybe Banuelos. But the bottom line is there aren't many of them around. And while this leads to your point about keeping Garza, he's not a sure-fire TOR guy himself, by any stretch. If you can get a middle rotation youngster in the upper levels or already in the majors and a TOR potential younger guy, it's a very sound tradeoff, in my mind.

[mookie]

This system needs elite upside talent. I thought we all knew that our system was not so hot because it was full of major league average, or utility role type guys, but no elite/high upside prospects?

 

If the Diamondbacks offer Bradley, which they won't, you take it, sign it, and print the presser as fast as you possibly can.

 

Dew, were you a big Jim Hendry fan?

[dew1679666265]

Dew, I guess my point here is any TOR arms that are currently in the upper minors are all top 20ish type prospects and a team isn't going to give one up for Garza, most likely not even one for one. I guess it's possible if you find a ghy with injury issues, like a Casey Crosby, maybe Banuelos. But the bottom line is there aren't many of them around. And while this leads to your point about keeping Garza, he's not a sure-fire TOR guy himself, by any stretch. If you can get a middle rotation youngster in the upper levels or already in the majors and a TOR potential younger guy, it's a very sound tradeoff, in my mind.

 

He's been one for back to back seasons now, I don't know why he wouldn't be going forward. I realize the WAR numbers are down for him this year, but everything else (outside of HR ratios and defense) are either dead on with last year or possibly a little better (GB% and BB/9 in particular). He's not the elite ace that he looked like he could be in 2011, but I don't think there's much doubt he's a TOR pitcher and he'll only be 29 next year.

 

I still don't see how a trade where the most likely scenario is that we get one mid-rotation starter and maybe another major leaguer (who knows how good) is a sound tradeoff when we're trading a guy with the ability of Garza who we don't need to trade.

[Guest]

This system needs elite upside talent. I thought we all knew that our system was not so hot because it was full of major league average, or utility role type guys, but no elite/high upside prospects?

 

If the Diamondbacks offer Bradley, which they won't, you take it, sign it, and print the presser as fast as you possibly can.

 

Dew, were you a big Jim Hendry fan?

 

that makes no sense

[davell]

Again, we're not adding major FA next season, from everything that's been said. On top of the return, which I think is very fair and worth trading him for, you also conceivably add spots to your draft positioning, more IFA money AND the flexibility to go sign another guy that's on Garza's level as well, when he's actually needed. So trading Garza nets you a mid rotation guy, a high upside SP lower down in the minors, the possible difference between an impact guy or not through the draft, probabky an extra big money IFA signing, AND the flexibility to go sign another Garza type when he's needed. I'm sorry man, I just don't see how this isn't the best option by far here.

[dew1679666265]

This system needs elite upside talent. I thought we all knew that our system was not so hot because it was full of major league average, or utility role type guys, but no elite/high upside prospects?

 

It needs more, but in the past two years we've added quite a bit (Baez, Soler, Almora, Rizzo, Vizcaino, and maybe guys like Maples and Johnson) and we have another chance to add a few more pieces next year with a top 1-3 pick and a large draft/IFA budget. We don't need to be trading away very good major leaguers who can help us for multiple years to come for no reason other than to stockpile more. We need to start thinking about building both the majors and the farm now.

 

If the Diamondbacks offer Bradley, which they won't, you take it, sign it, and print the presser as fast as you possibly can.

 

There's no way I'd trade a TOR starter who's 28 who we don't financially need to trade for a guy who has legitimately great upside but also has plenty of questions surrounding whether he'll even make the majors, much less become a TOR pitcher himself.

 

Dew, were you a big Jim Hendry fan?

 

Not really, no. I wasn't in favor of firing him just for the sake of it, but I felt like it was time for him to go and felt comfortable that Ricketts would have a plan if he fired him. Overall, I thought Hendry was probably an average GM, give or take a little.

[mookie]

This system needs elite upside talent. I thought we all knew that our system was not so hot because it was full of major league average, or utility role type guys, but no elite/high upside prospects?

 

If the Diamondbacks offer Bradley, which they won't, you take it, sign it, and print the presser as fast as you possibly can.

 

Dew, were you a big Jim Hendry fan?

 

that makes no sense

 

Really, what part?

[dew1679666265]

Again, we're not adding major FA next season, from everything that's been said. On top of the return, which I think is very fair and worth trading him for, you also conceivably add spots to your draft positioning, more IFA money AND the flexibility to go sign another guy that's on Garza's level as well, when he's actually needed. So trading Garza nets you a mid rotation guy, a high upside SP lower down in the minors, the possible difference between an impact guy or not through the draft, probabky an extra big money IFA signing, AND the flexibility to go sign another Garza type when he's needed. I'm sorry man, I just don't see how this isn't the best option by far here.

 

If the plan is to tank the next couple of seasons just for the chance of adding Rohon or Ward, then yeah trading Garza is by far the best option. But there's simply no good reason why we need to do that. I'm not going to get into the game of predicting what the Theo regime is going to do in the future, I tried that last year and was wrong - they're much smarter than I am. You and a lot of other smart people on here are making one argument, while a lot of other smart people are making the exact opposite argument (that the Theo regime isn't punting the next season or two). I don't think any of us know for sure what their plans are.

 

What I am arguing is what I believe is the best plan for this organization to win now and later, instead of just now or just later. Keeping Garza is a part of that plan, but if a team makes a good offer for him (i.e. a high upside, near ready player and another mid-rotation arm) then you should take it. And again, I still don't see how a trade where the most likely scenario is that we get a better Travis Wood and nothing else is a good trade for Garza.

[dew1679666265]

Really, what part?

 

I'd be interested to know what Hendry has anything to do with this. Other than, I guess, anybody who wants to win games soon must be pining away for him or something.