Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[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 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.

 

Use Garza's salary slot to get another 3 WAR pitcher while you add 19 year old pitching prospects who actually are valuable assets despite the fact that you can list countless failed ones.

[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.

 

Use Garza's salary slot to get another 3 WAR pitcher while you add 19 year old pitching prospects who actually are valuable assets despite the fact that you can list countless failed ones.

 

Yes, I'll just grab one from the 3 WAR pitcher tree.

[davell]

Garza is a top 30ish pitcher. There may not be an endless supply, but you can find them.

[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 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.

 

Use Garza's salary slot to get another 3 WAR pitcher while you add 19 year old pitching prospects who actually are valuable assets despite the fact that you can list countless failed ones.

 

Yes, I'll just grab one from the 3 WAR pitcher tree.

 

 

Garza is much more valuable at whatever his relatively cheap salary will be next year to a team that actually will be trying to win games in 2013.

 

If I thought they were trying to put together a contending team next year, I'd advocate keeping him. The situation being what it is, I'd rather convert that greater value to those teams into long term assets than pay a pitcher who I think will be overvalued (and subsequently overpaid) in order to keep him long term.

[davell]

I was looking rosters over and tried to guess what may be on the market from a trade standpoint over the offseason. At this point, with it being a very weak FA class and a large need for pitching, I see more guys possibly being available in trade than normal. Anyway, Gavin Floyd, Rick Porcello, Brian Matusz, Josh Beckett, Phil Hughes, James Shields, Wade Davis, Brett Anderson(or another young guy from there) Delgado or Minor, Josh Johnson, Cliff Lee, Ian Kennedy, and Chad Billingsley. That's the group I can see being talked about. Solid list of names, which I hope we'd be in on a few of obviously.

[dew1679666265]

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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

[KingCubsFan]

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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

The risk is that the prospects turn to be nothing (which is always more likely than them turning into long-term pieces). Plus the risk that the expected 3 WAR pitcher you sign ends up being terrible.

[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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

The risk is that the prospects turn to be nothing (which is always more likely than them turning into long-term pieces). Plus the risk that the expected 3 WAR pitcher you sign ends up being terrible.

 

 

That risk isn't there with signing Garza long term?

[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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

The risk is that the prospects turn to be nothing (which is always more likely than them turning into long-term pieces). Plus the risk that the expected 3 WAR pitcher you sign ends up being terrible.

 

 

That risk isn't there with signing Garza long term?

 

There are maybe 2 guys in davell's list who are better bets than Garza(with higher price tags...also Matusz and Porcello?? Still with that??)

[dew1679666265]

That risk isn't there with signing Garza long term?

 

It's there, but there's a much, much higher chance that Garza will continue the same statistical pace he's been on the past couple of years for the majority of a contract that would, at the longest, have him under team control through his age 33 season than that there will be an equally talented - or moreso - player available in FA who can be had on a reasonable deal at exactly the right time for us.

 

To put it another way, going with option A, the only real risk you face is that Garza suffers some fluke injury and/or randomly becomes terrible between his age 29-33 seasons. With Option B, there's the risk that whoever this hypothetical FA is will be available at the right time, will be at least as good as Garza, can be had at a reasonable price (or thereabouts), and that he won't suffer some fluke injury and/or randomly become terrible between whatever age range we sign him through. And that's not even considering all the risk involved in trading Garza, essentially, for a slightly better Travis Wood, a longshot with a bunch of upside, and the possible chance to sign/draft a couple longshots with a bunch of upside.

[dew1679666265]

There are maybe 2 guys in davell's list who are better bets than Garza(with higher price tags...also Matusz and Porcello?? Still with that??)

 

And with every player in davell's list, we have to give up talent of our own to get them. None of them are FAs, so we're giving up talent to get them as opposed to just keeping the TOR pitcher we already have.

[KingCubsFan]

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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

The risk is that the prospects turn to be nothing (which is always more likely than them turning into long-term pieces). Plus the risk that the expected 3 WAR pitcher you sign ends up being terrible.

 

 

That risk isn't there with signing Garza long term?

Well yeah, of course there's a risk of that too. I suppose it depends on what you think Garza is projected to do over the next few years. I think he's been in the majors long enough where you can say he's probably not going to be terrible, and he's probably not a huge risk to miss entire seasons due to injury. At the same time, he's probably not repeating last year either.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Garza is not a top30 pitcher. Even giving him his xFip.

[mookie]

No? Garza is pretty solid though. Where does he fall then Kyle?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No? Garza is pretty solid though. Where does he fall then Kyle?

 

Right now? Borderline top50 and starting to exit his prime.

[davell]

FWIW, I wasn't listing those guys as Garza replacements for us. Just mentioning them as possible competition for us putting Garza on the market.

[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?

 

Come on davell, you're better than overly simplifying things like this. If that were all there were to consider, no team would ever retain a veteran player.

 

Is it though? I'm using our exact situation here. Things would be different if we were coming off an 85 win season or something. But we're not, we're one of the worst teams in baseball, with extremely little hope to contend in 2013. I think the way I broke it down was very fair for us. On a side note, the debate is fun, at the very least. :D

[davell]

Something that has been glossed over, touched on, but stayed away from mainly, is the renovation. I'm not privvy to thrir thinking or the Ricketts' financials, but could they be looking at things from this standpoint? I'm asking, by the way, because I want to know if this is plausible.

 

What we know is that attendance is down, meaning revenue has certainly suffered. No clue as to what kind of numbers this entails, if anyone does, I'd love to hear it. We also know that they're adding as much ad space and extracurricular activities to Wrigley, to make it more profitable, both in the short and longterm. Could the extra stuff actually nreak even with the loss of revenue from us losing? Again, I have no clue about these things. I also have no idea as to what the Ricketts financial positioning is right now. Are they liquid enough to flit the bill for 350 millions worth of renovations right now, over an 18 month process? Again, if someone knows this, I'd love to hear it.

 

So, maybe the extra money from activities offsets lost revenue from the Cubs? Because we DO know the Cubs were profitable even during the extreme high payroll seasons, according to Ricketts. If so, the lost payroll of last year, 2013, and possibly 2014, from a 140ish range down to 100, 80, and 80(guesses obviously, and 80 in 2014 could bear a very solid team in my mind, before jumping down my throat) conceivably puts 160 mill towards the renovation. If the latest reports of getting 150 mill through public funding of some sort are accurate, it puts us less than 200 away from funding without stepping into the pockets of Ricketts at all. Then, you have the WGN deal running out in 2014, so a renegotiated deal with CSN puts more money into the deal, not at first, but at least covered rather quickly. Basically, between public funding, the lesser payroll and the new TV deal, the entire renovation could happen with no money out of pocket, or at least not that won't be paid back within a year or two.

 

Maybe Ricketts actually IS the smartest man in the room here. He hires a group to oversee the baseball portion that's as good or better than anyone else at spending wisely. Knowing that there's not going to be many funds available until after that general time frame. Meanwhile, the rebuild plan coincides with all of this as well. I truly do think Ricketts wants to bring a winner here and that it's possible the entire teardown from Theo and Co. had all of this in mind, knowing that it was the right way to do things, to build a monster team only helped with their decision. And come time for the new unveiling, the new TV deal, we'll have a team just beginning to hit on all cylinders and dominate.

 

Like I said, maybe I'm so far off here, it's not even funny, maybe someone can clue me in on some of this stuff a bit more. I know I definitely think this is much bigger than Matt fraking Garza obviously, but it could at least help nudge us a certain direction, is why I'm bringing it up, along with the hope someone could shed more light on this type of stuff.

[dew1679666265]

Is it though? I'm using our exact situation here. Things would be different if we were coming off an 85 win season or something. But we're not, we're one of the worst teams in baseball, with extremely little hope to contend in 2013. I think the way I broke it down was very fair for us. On a side note, the debate is fun, at the very least. :D

 

Oh yeah, I enjoy the debate.

 

It's not what you said, it's what you didn't say that I took exception with. Option B is an extremely high risk option, since even with the Theo regime at the helm, 19 year olds are much more likely than not to flame out than they are to come close to their ceiling. The trade you mentioned is much more likely to provide us with a slightly better version of Travis Wood and nothing else than any other scenario.

 

On the other hand, we know Garza is a TOR type pitcher and even if we ended up giving him a 5 year deal (I see 4-5 as most likely, with 4 years very realistic since he may want a shot at another big contract), we'd only have him through his age 33 season. There's a lot of risk with any pitcher, but outside of the usual injury fears you have with pitchers, Garza is a relatively low risk, but high reward, option.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

On the other hand, we know Garza is a TOR type pitcher

 

I really don't know that. That's my problem.

 

He is tied for 70th in fWAR among starting pitchers. If you want to do a little voodoo to normalize his HR rate, you could probably get him from 1.3 fWAR to 1.9, which would be tied for 49th. And that's in the second-best year of his career. I guess you could define that as "TOR," but that's in the same way that we get excited about the 100th ranked guy being "top-100."

 

And these are supposed to be his prime years. When we are talking about an extension, we are talking about buying his age 30-35 seasons. I'm not really interested in paying top dollar for the post-prime years of a pitcher who was merely above-average in his prime years.

[davell]

Is it though? I'm using our exact situation here. Things would be different if we were coming off an 85 win season or something. But we're not, we're one of the worst teams in baseball, with extremely little hope to contend in 2013. I think the way I broke it down was very fair for us. On a side note, the debate is fun, at the very least. :D

 

Oh yeah, I enjoy the debate.

 

It's not what you said, it's what you didn't say that I took exception with. Option B is an extremely high risk option, since even with the Theo regime at the helm, 19 year olds are much more likely than not to flame out than they are to come close to their ceiling. The trade you mentioned is much more likely to provide us with a slightly better version of Travis Wood and nothing else than any other scenario.

 

On the other hand, we know Garza is a TOR type pitcher and even if we ended up giving him a 5 year deal (I see 4-5 as most likely, with 4 years very realistic since he may want a shot at another big contract), we'd only have him through his age 33 season. There's a lot of risk with any pitcher, but outside of the usual injury fears you have with pitchers, Garza is a relatively low risk, but high reward, option.

 

Adding a guy like a Syndergaard(again, example, not a guarantee) gives you ammo. It's not that you're counting on THAT guy to necessarily come up and be a legit 1/2. It's the hope that he has a solid year in A+ ball next year. That's what you need out of that guy. A player becomes much more valuable the closer he gets to the bigs. After one more season, a guy like Syndergaard could conceivably be a top 10ish prospect and bait that could lead a deal for an established younger guy who's already under control. Of coure, if the guy looks like he's going to be lights out, then great, you keep him and hope he DOES become the ace we hope for.

 

I also think you're not giving the other make believe piece near enough credit here either. Hutchison has 3ish ability in his own right and already has a taste in the toughest division in baseball. That guy is just 21 years old. I wouldn't dare mention his upside with Travis Wood. He's a guy we'd genuinely be excited to watch his starts and see his progress over the course of his career. He was a top 50ish prospect, in his own right and as I said, is 21 right now. To me, I'm asking for quite a bit for a year of Garza. And it fits in much better with our time frame, than extending his does, especially when that money is gone. My way, you've possibly replaced him with a Hutchison type, given yourself a bigtime trade chip in Syndergaard or someone like him, and still have the money to go sign a 15 mill a year pitcher when the time is right.

[dew1679666265]

I really don't know that. That's my problem.

 

He is tied for 70th in fWAR among starting pitchers. If you want to do a little voodoo to normalize his HR rate, you could probably get him from 1.3 fWAR to 1.9, which would be tied for 49th. And that's in the second-best year of his career. I guess you could define that as "TOR," but that's in the same way that we get excited about the 100th ranked guy being "top-100."

 

Included in that list are about 8 guys who are either having really fluky seasons (Dickey, Capuano, Vogelsong) or are old/injured enough to make it very unlikely they repeat this season (Colon, Lohse, Millwood, Westbrook, Kuroda). Limiting it to just the guys who can reasonably be expected to repeat this level of WAR, you have Garza as around a top 30-35 type. Looking solely at xFIP, Garza's 25th in the majors with two pitchers (Dickey, Blanton) have flukish seasons in front of him. According to SIERA, Garza is 26th with the same two pitchers having flukish seasons in front of him.

 

Is Garza elite? Not unless he can figure out how to replicate his 2011 season. But he's a really good pitcher and not one easily replaceable.

 

And these are supposed to be his prime years. When we are talking about an extension, we are talking about buying his age 30-35 seasons. I'm not really interested in paying top dollar for the post-prime years of a pitcher who was merely above-average in his prime years.

 

We're not getting to his age 35 season unless we give him a 7 year deal, and I don't see that happening. The most likely occurrence is we're buying his age 29-33 seasons and possibly his age 29-32 seasons if he settles for a 4-year deal in the hopes he gets one more really big contract. Given his steady - if not improving - peripherals the past couple of seasons and the fact that he's not been overly abused during his ML career, a considerable decline by age 32-33 is pretty unlikely.

[sneakypower]

On the other hand, we know Garza is a TOR type pitcher

 

I really don't know that. That's my problem.

 

He is tied for 70th in fWAR among starting pitchers. If you want to do a little voodoo to normalize his HR rate, you could probably get him from 1.3 fWAR to 1.9, which would be tied for 49th. And that's in the second-best year of his career. I guess you could define that as "TOR," but that's in the same way that we get excited about the 100th ranked guy being "top-100."

 

And these are supposed to be his prime years. When we are talking about an extension, we are talking about buying his age 30-35 seasons. I'm not really interested in paying top dollar for the post-prime years of a pitcher who was merely above-average in his prime years.

we know xFIP is a better predictor of future performance than FIP, and he's been the 14th-best pitcher in that regard for his duration as a Cub

 

i'm ambivalent about keeping him/trading him, but it's very reasonable to term him a TOR pitcher moving forward

[CubColtPacer]

 

We're not getting to his age 35 season unless we give him a 7 year deal, and I don't see that happening. The most likely occurrence is we're buying his age 29-33 seasons and possibly his age 29-32 seasons if he settles for a 4-year deal in the hopes he gets one more really big contract. Given his steady - if not improving - peripherals the past couple of seasons and the fact that he's not been overly abused during his ML career, a considerable decline by age 32-33 is pretty unlikely.

 

IMO, Garza's very unlikely to settle for a 4 year deal, especially a 4 year deal that would only buy out 3 free agent years. If he wants a chance at one more contract, he'll be much more likely to ask for a longer deal with an opt out. The Cubs are likely not going to be able to extend him this offseason unless they pay him close to what he wants. And if they wait until free agency, he's probably going to command a 5 year deal taking him through his age 34 season if not 6.

[dew1679666265]

Adding a guy like a Syndergaard(again, example, not a guarantee) gives you ammo. It's not that you're counting on THAT guy to necessarily come up and be a legit 1/2. It's the hope that he has a solid year in A+ ball next year. That's what you need out of that guy. A player becomes much more valuable the closer he gets to the bigs. After one more season, a guy like Syndergaard could conceivably be a top 10ish prospect and bait that could lead a deal for an established younger guy who's already under control. Of coure, if the guy looks like he's going to be lights out, then great, you keep him and hope he DOES become the ace we hope for.

 

If that established younger guy is out there to be traded for. You mentioned Longoria and Price yesterday, but the Rays almost certainly won't be motivated to move Longoria until the 2014 offseason at the earliest and probably later. They may be more willing to move Price in a year or two, but then you're adding a 29/30 year old pitcher, giving a massive amount of talent for him, and immediately giving him a long term extension.

 

I realize that we don't have to target one of those two, but I think you're envisioning it being easier than it is to find an established superstar available on the trade market. In large part, organizations - especially small market clubs - are getting smarter and are finding ways to lock up their young talent for longer periods. Look at what the Rays did with Longoria/Price, or the Rockies with Tulo, or the Brewers with Braun, etc. If you're banking on having superstars available at the exact time we need them, you're taking a very significant risk.

 

I also think you're not giving the other make believe piece near enough credit here either. Hutchison has 3ish ability in his own right and already has a taste in the toughest division in baseball. That guy is just 21 years old. I wouldn't dare mention his upside with Travis Wood. He's a guy we'd genuinely be excited to watch his starts and see his progress over the course of his career. He was a top 50ish prospect, in his own right and as I said, is 21 right now. To me, I'm asking for quite a bit for a year of Garza. And it fits in much better with our time frame, than extending his does, especially when that money is gone. My way, you've possibly replaced him with a Hutchison type, given yourself a bigtime trade chip in Syndergaard or someone like him, and still have the money to go sign a 15 mill a year pitcher when the time is right.

 

When we acquired Wood, he was a mid-rotation arm with multiple years of control. You're billing Hutchison as a mid-rotation arm with multiple years of control. I'm sure he has more upside than Wood does and he's considerably younger, but the most likely scenario, again, is that he's a little better than Travis Wood. Most players don't hit their upside, they generally fall a little to a lot short. So if his upside is a 3ish type starter, then you have to plan for him to be at least a little worse than that. Then if he hits his upside, it's a bonus.

 

So again, the most likely scenario that we're looking at if we trade Garza for Hutchison/Syndergaard (and I'd love to have Syndergaard in our system) is that we end up with a better version of Travis Wood and a little extra money to spend on longshots in 2014's draft/IFA period. That doesn't make me very enthusiastic.