Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[mookie]

It is entirely possible to operate on parallel fronts by trading Garza.

[dew1679666265]

It is entirely possible to operate on parallel fronts by trading Garza.

 

It's going to be really, really tough if the best you get for him is a better version of Travis Wood and a guy who's 2-3 years away from throwing a pitch in the majors (if he makes it at all). At least it is when the major league roster is this bad.

 

That said, I've never even stated that we should not trade Garza. I've simply argued that if we trade him, we need to get a guy who has the upside to replace him and is close enough that there's some certainty that he can hit that ceiling.

[davell]

Dew, at the beginning of last offseason, I was thinking more of signing Fielder and trading for a TOR starter somehow. When I saw what these guys appear to be doing, I jumped on board with it. I think it's a much easier way to build a true powerhouse honestly. And I think it's incredibly ballsy for them to attempt it in a major market. They're banking on their previous track record to help carry them through a couple of lean years and I think it will. Our system is on a bigtime upswing already, most of our best prospects are in A Ball or lower. Those guys developing in itself for another year makes the system much easier to trade from. But with a high pick next year and probably the year after as well, along with the IFA budgets to match, it's going to be a monster. In 2014, my honest guess is that's when you see us trading for the Evan Longorias or David Prices, those types. And they won't be uber expensive contractually yet either, allowing for big name FA signings as well. And with the way these guys draft, it won't empty out the system to trade for a few guys like that. With our young core in place, I see domination of the Central from that point forward, going back and forth with the damn Dodgers dominating the NL. I think this way takes us a bit longer to get there, but it keeps us there much longer than the other way too.

[mookie]

It is entirely possible to operate on parallel fronts by trading Garza.

 

It's going to be really, really tough if the best you get for him is a better version of Travis Wood and a guy who's 2-3 years away from throwing a pitch in the majors (if he makes it at all). At least it is when the major league roster is this bad.

 

That said, I've never even stated that we should not trade Garza. I've simply argued that if we trade him, we need to get a guy who has the upside to replace him and is close enough that there's some certainty that he can hit that ceiling.

 

Right, and I understand where you are coming from now. I used to think you were just adamantly against trading him. I will echo others by saying it will be really hard, if not impossible, to get a close to major league ready upside player for one year of Garza.

 

Actually, forgive me if you have already answered this, but how close to the majors is close enough for you to approve of a trade?

[mookie]

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.

 

I was reading a bit into your thought process for wanting close to major league ready talent for Garza. I was being a bit of a jerk, honestly. Sorry about that.

[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

 

Really, what part?

 

implying he was a hendry fan for no reason.

 

i also think you are acting like bradley is some historic prospect or something.

[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?

 

implying he was a hendry fan for no reason.

 

i also think you are acting like bradley is some historic prospect or something.

 

There was a reason for the implication, it was just a jerkish reason. I don't see how I have treated Bradley as anything other than a very high upside arm that would be a great get for one year of Garza.

[dew1679666265]

Right, and I understand where you are coming from now. I used to think you were just adamantly against trading him. I will echo others by saying it will be really hard, if not impossible, to get a close to major league ready upside player for one year of Garza.

 

You're probably right, and as I've said before, if a team doesn't meet your demands then you re-sign Garza. We don't need to trade him, so we shouldn't operate like we do.

 

Actually, forgive me if you have already answered this, but how close to the majors is close enough for you to approve of a trade?

 

I've not answered that yet, actually, so don't feel bad. That's a hard question to give a direct answer to without considering specific players. I've mentioned targeting guys like (not these guys specifically, but guys like these) Delgado/Skaggs/Bauer as the primary piece of a Garza deal. If there's a guy a little further away who's pretty polished, but still has TOR upside, I'd probably consider him. I guess if I gave a somewhat specific answer, I'd say he'd have to be AA or higher, preferably either in the majors or within a year or two of reaching it but not necessary depending on the player.

[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.

 

I was reading a bit into your thought process for wanting close to major league ready talent for Garza. I was being a bit of a jerk, honestly. Sorry about that.

 

Haha, not a problem. I'm trying hard not to come off as anti-Theo or something because I'm not. I have the utmost confidence that this regime will make us dominant. If their plan is to tank 2-3 years (including this one), I don't agree that it's the optimal plan, but I believe they'll make it work. I am happy that we finally have leadership that has an organizational philosophy and a plan and will stick to both, even if I don't necessarily agree that the plan is the best one.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm thinking right now I'm simply not convinced Garza is the kind of pitcher who I want to extend.

[dew1679666265]

Dew, at the beginning of last offseason, I was thinking more of signing Fielder and trading for a TOR starter somehow. When I saw what these guys appear to be doing, I jumped on board with it. I think it's a much easier way to build a true powerhouse honestly. And I think it's incredibly ballsy for them to attempt it in a major market. They're banking on their previous track record to help carry them through a couple of lean years and I think it will. Our system is on a bigtime upswing already, most of our best prospects are in A Ball or lower. Those guys developing in itself for another year makes the system much easier to trade from. But with a high pick next year and probably the year after as well, along with the IFA budgets to match, it's going to be a monster. In 2014, my honest guess is that's when you see us trading for the Evan Longorias or David Prices, those types. And they won't be uber expensive contractually yet either, allowing for big name FA signings as well. And with the way these guys draft, it won't empty out the system to trade for a few guys like that. With our young core in place, I see domination of the Central from that point forward, going back and forth with the damn Dodgers dominating the NL. I think this way takes us a bit longer to get there, but it keeps us there much longer than the other way too.

 

I can't imagine the Rays are going to be all that motivated to trade away integral parts of their team who are making, probably, less than $15 mil AAV. Longoria has club options through 2016 that don't exceed $11 million, the 2014 offseason is the soonest I could see them even thinking about trading him and, knowing how smart Friedman is, they're going to want to clean out anybody's farm for him at that point. Price is a little more realistic, but he turns 27 (this is surprising to me, thought he was younger) this season, so he'll be turning 30 the season we'd pay a king's ransom for him and extend him for huge money (to justify giving the king's ransom). That scares me with a pitcher.

 

All that said, I realize you may not have intended them specifically, but I think they're two good examples of how teams are getting smarter today (especially the smaller market teams) and are finding ways to keep their young talent for longer periods. I simply don't buy that there's going to be an abundance of great young talent available for us, and the ones that are will be in such high demand that the cost will be exorbitant for them. That's why I think it's so important to start filling out the roster with value buys like Upton and Liriano now so that we don't have so many holes that must be filled in one offseason. It's also why keeping Garza can be so beneficial - if the plan is contention in 2015, he'll only be 31 so heavy decline is unlikely at that point and he's one less unknown to have to plan around.

[dew1679666265]

I'm thinking right now I'm simply not convinced Garza is the kind of pitcher who I want to extend.

 

Price is certainly something to be considered, but his peripherals are still very good - outside of HR ratios and defense. If you think he'll continue to have the highest HR/FB ratio of his career (over 16% at most recent check) and that he's hopeless defensively even with the Theo regime working with him, then I guess you wouldn't like him a lot.

 

On the flipside, his K/9 has remained in the same area for 3 straight years now, his BB/9 has decreased each of the past 3 years, his GB% is in line with last year's career high, and his xFIP is the second highest of his career and much closer to his 2011 than any previous year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm thinking right now I'm simply not convinced Garza is the kind of pitcher who I want to extend.

 

Price is certainly something to be considered, but his peripherals are still very good - outside of HR ratios and defense. If you think he'll continue to have the highest HR/FB ratio of his career (over 16% at most recent check) and that he's hopeless defensively even with the Theo regime working with him, then I guess you wouldn't like him a lot.

 

On the flipside, his K/9 has remained in the same area for 3 straight years now, his BB/9 has decreased each of the past 3 years, his GB% is in line with last year's career high, and his xFIP is the second highest of his career and much closer to his 2011 than any previous year.

 

But what does all that add up to? Right now, he's on pace for 2.3 fWAR per 33 starts. Even giving him the xFIP credit, he'd be on pace for about 3.5 fWAR. Given his age at the time an extension would be beginning (30) and the general attrition of a starting pitcher's career, I'm not sure I feel comfortable projecting him as more than a 3-win yearly pitcher during the extension years, and that might be generous.

 

He's going to want a big, fat, long-term contract. I just can't shake the feeling that he's not a pitcher worth one of those contracts in his 30s.

[dew1679666265]

But what does all that add up to? Right now, he's on pace for 2.3 fWAR per 33 starts. Even giving him the xFIP credit, he'd be on pace for about 3.5 fWAR. Given his age at the time an extension would be beginning (30) and the general attrition of a starting pitcher's career, I'm not sure I feel comfortable projecting him as more than a 3-win yearly pitcher during the extension years, and that might be generous.

 

He's going to want a big, fat, long-term contract. I just can't shake the feeling that he's not a pitcher worth one of those contracts in his 30s.

 

He's on pace for about 2.5 fWAR with an abnormally high HR/FB rate and really awful defense dragging it down considerably. As you said, normalizing his HR/FB rate through xFIP bumps him up to on pace for 3.5 fWAR and if there's any chance of improving his defense, that fWAR could rise some more (though honestly I don't know how much of a bump he could get through fielding improvements). I don't think it's outlandish to see him as a 3-3.5 fWAR pitcher going forward with potential for better with some improvements.

 

All that said, if he asks for a Matt Cain contract and refuses to ever budge from that, then you try harder to deal him. I expect, though, that he'll stick to the Cain comp as long as he can (much like Hamels stuck to that 7-8 year deal thing as long as he could) and then if it's clear he's inferior to that then he'll drop his demands to something more reasonable. And who knows, maybe he reverts in the next year to the 2011 version and a Cain deal looks reasonable.

 

The beauty of our current situation is, we don't have to decide now nor in the offseason. We have nearly a full calendar year to evaluate, negotiate, and field offers before we must make a decision. We can always make a decision before that, but we don't have to.

[Guest]

Interesting that reading unread posts takes me from this thread, where Kyle is very hesitant to give a big contract to Garza(a 3-4 win pitcher with a chance at 5 win seasons), to the thread in Rants where Kyle is salivating over having Darvish(a 3-4 win pitcher with a chance at 5 win seasons) at his even bigger contract. There's obviously some mitigating factors like age, and hoping for improvement as Darvish acclimates to MLB, but the difference was striking to me.

 

Garza seems to be an extension of the same philosophical argument we had all of last season. Talented free agents are not going to be great values. As such, it makes less sense to go after them the further you are from being a playoff team. However, especially when it comes to retaining your own players, that can become a self fulfilling prophecy. Unless you hit it very big on the trade market(certainly possible), waiting until free agents become good investments will just be way too long for a team that can afford what the Cubs can afford. Perfect can be the enemy of good.

 

Furthermore, I'm reading a lot of talk about building towards 2014-2015, when I think most are underestimating the amount of turnover that will come about during that timeframe. Let's take a look at the Brewers of 3 years ago. They won 80 games and certainly looked to be on the cusp of extended competitiveness, with Braun, Fielder, Hart, and Gallardo as cornerstones. Fast forward to 2012, they're playing at a 75 win pace. More importantly, here is the list of 2009 Brewer regulars that are a part of the 2012 team: Weeks, Braun, Gamel, Hart, Gallardo, Parra. The end. And that's not an uncommon situation. The Cardinals only have about 6-7 guys who were contributors in '09 who still are in 2012. Same with the big market Dodgers.

 

Simply put, the more afraid you are to acquire retain/talented major league players, the longer you will remain noncompetitive because rosters turn over too much to see that far down the line. That doesn't mean to be reckless with spending, but the amount of talent on the MLB roster is important, and should be treated as such. I was okay with how last offseason went, primarily because I understood the desire to hit the reset button with the new regime and make the roster more their own before committing huge dollars. And while we shouldn't be making laundry lists of FAs to act as the primary means of adding talent, they can't be afraid of spending to add and keep players of value, even if it isn't hyper-efficient to do so. Again, perfect is the enemy of good.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Interesting that reading unread posts takes me from this thread, where Kyle is very hesitant to give a big contract to Garza(a 3-4 win pitcher with a chance at 5 win seasons), to the thread in Rants where Kyle is salivating over having Darvish(a 3-4 win pitcher with a chance at 5 win seasons) at his even bigger contract. There's obviously some mitigating factors like age, and hoping for improvement as Darvish acclimates to MLB, but the difference was striking to me.

 

The age is *really* important. Garza has been a 3-win pitcher on average in his prime years and he's about to exit them. Darvish is a touch better right now and hasn't turned 26 yet.

 

If Garza were 25 years old, I'd say extend away.

 

This doesn't have to be a philosophical discussion about signing theoretical players and aversion to long-term commitments. I'm simply not sure I want to make a long-term commitment to this specific player. He's not as good as his reputation; the years we'd be buying are his non-prime ones; and although obviously the people making the decision have more exact info, it seems as if he's not interested in anything but top dollar. The perfect may be the enemy of the good, but that's often just a way of rationalizing suboptimal choices.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If we were to sign Garza to a 5-6 year extension, we'd have him through his prime. Good for us. However, the question is how many of his best years is he willing to give to a team that's building toward the future? He may very well want to know what the plan is for the next 2-4 years before signing, and I wouldn't blame him. I don't think he wants to be 32-33 years old if/when the wave of the future start shuffeling in, and then wait a few more years before they begin to hit their strides. If they don't plan on making the necessary moves to help the team win in the next 1-3 years, I can't imagine him agreeing to an extension.

 

Also, I keep hearing about his having an off year, but looking at his numbers, they're pretty much where they've always been. In fact his 1.177 WHIP is by far his best ever and his BB/K are right around his career averages.

[davell]

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

[Guest]

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

 

I'm with you.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

 

I'm with you.

 

I'd love option B, but the question is how close to the actual package that we'd get is it? If the type of package that they wanted was being offered, he'd probably have been moved by the deadline. Now, instead of trading for 1 year of him + and additional 2 months for a playoff run, it's just 1 year. At least at the deadline, we had a pretty good idea of what else was on the trade market. We have no idea what else could be made available in the Winter.

[Guest]

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

 

I'm with you.

 

I'd love option B, but the question is how close to the actual package that we'd get is it? If the type of package that they wanted was being offered, he'd probably have been moved by the deadline. Now, instead of trading for 1 year of him + and additional 2 months for a playoff run, it's just 1 year. At least at the deadline, we had a pretty good idea of what else was on the trade market. We have no idea what else could be made available in the Winter.

 

The injury was a major reason why he wasn't moved at the deadline. Otherwise, I feel he probably would have been.

[Guest]

Keeping him now and throwing him out there every 5th day instead of a retread of some sort risks more wins and a worse draft slot at the end of the season. Finishing with the worst record and having the top pick compared to the 6th pick has to be of significant value as well. Granted, you don't make the decision to trade a guy just for that reason, but the return of prospects and a potentially more significant draft pick is significant.

[toonsterwu]

Really more a side note, but considering what they were reportedly targeting for Dempster (starting with Lee, falling back to Webster with the Dodgers ... and then there were the failed Delgado example), I really wonder what they would've shot for had Garza been healthy. They kept talking about two prime young pieces, so I wonder what they had, in their minds, as a possible demand.

 

I say this because of the comment above - I'm not so sure they would've taken Hutchison/Syndegaard and change for Garza. I have nothing to base it on, but it's just that ...with what they were demanding, initially, for Dempster, one would imagine the demands on Garza would be higher, and Hutchison/Syndegaard seems like a steep drop.

 

_____

 

My stance on Garza is fairly simple, and it's loosely what TT wrote above. At some point, you need to keep guys, but ... at this stage in the rebuilding, if Garza isn't willing to sign for whatever they feel is appropriate, then yes, I think they should move him IF they get a good deal. At the end of the day, whether or not a deal will be decent can easily be judged by whether or not they feel that the package is better than gaining a compensatory pick (hard to see Garza taking a one year deal), so Theo/Jed will probably have an idea for what qualifies as good and they can work from there.

 

You don't take a bad package, and you don't give Garza what he wants, but you also can't waste a resource at this critical juncture in the rebuilding process. It's a delicate balance, but they are paid to figure it out.

[SouthSideRyan]

Again, I break it down like this: Option A is you can have Garza. Option B is you can have (example, but probably close) Drew Hutchison, Noah Syndergaard, 5 draft spots higher, half a million extra in IFA money, and Garza's entire salary slot available go go sign another 3 WAR pitcher. Why does anyone want Option A?

 

I'm with you.

 

I'd rather have a player I know will be good than a 19 year old pitching prospect. If I had a job where I didn't have to do actual work still, I'd go pull up a bunch of wishcasting trades from years past that were littered with Syndergaards and Hutchisons who are completely [expletive] worthless right now.

[davell]

To clarify, I think that's the asking price moving forward. We lost value by not trading him(shitty circumstances) already. They supposedly wanted 3 very good prospects for him. Two postseasons and an extra half year lost, certainly lowers his value. The return I'm figuring(again, an example of value, moreso than actual names) is based on a season of Garza along with the team acquiring him having the ability to get the comp pick after the season. In the end, I think we'll get something close to the value I've been mentioning or else we won't deal him.