Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

You're probably right on the 4 year deal, it was kind of a random thought I had last night that I probably got too hung up on. That said, there's no way I wait until free agency on Garza. I'd work on both extending him and trading him this offseason and then really buckle down on extending him through the first half of next season. If we get down to the deadline and it's clear there's no bridging the gap between the two sides, then deal him at the deadline.

 

I don't see any way he ends up with a 6 year deal, though, since a clearly superior pitcher who is the same age as him (Hamels) just signed a 6 year deal. I guess maybe he could give up some money to get an extra year, but I'd be surprised if he liked that option. I fully expect him to be extended by whoever has his rights and think it's much more likely than not that he ends up with a 5 year deal - either taking him through his age 33 season (if he signs this offseason and it replaces the arbitration year) or through his age 34 season (if he signs at some point next season).

[neely crenshaw]

Why wouldn't we have all of the money we would have spent on Garza to spend on a FA pitcher? and more actually.

It's been said that money is not a problem.

I just don't see why we wouldn't trade him for prospects, and then sign a similar pitcher whether it be for 2013 or 2014. That way we add to our system, and have a top end pitcher. I know everyone likes Garza and he has talent BUT it's not like he has been awesome. His performance is certainly replaceable.

[dew1679666265]

Why wouldn't we have all of the money we would have spent on Garza to spend on a FA pitcher? and more actually.

It's been said that money is not a problem.

I just don't see why we wouldn't trade him for prospects, and then sign a similar pitcher whether it be for 2013 or 2014. That way we add to our system, and have a top end pitcher. I know everyone likes Garza and he has talent BUT it's not like he has been awesome. His performance is certainly replaceable.

 

If you figure Garza's value at this point is around $15 million AAV (I think he's worth a little more, but that's quibbling), then you better be ready to pay his free agent equivalent probably $18-20 mil per season. Or you better be ready to take a chance on a guy with more ability than his performance would indicate (kind of like what we did with Lilly a few years ago). You really should focus on replacing Garza with a piece from the trade rather than bank on finding his equivalent on the FA market.

 

On a side note, Fangraphs has Garza worth $22 million last year and on pace to be worth about $12 million this year. If you average those two numbers together, you get his average value as a Cub as $17 million per season, assuming he doesn't improve his numbers in the second half. That might be a dumb way to do it and it may mean nothing, but I found it interesting.

[davell]

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.

 

Travis Wood is a guy we were HOPEFUl of becoming a midrotation guy. But most considered him a back end guy from the start. Again, there's a HUGE difference between a 3 and a 5. And I put a Hutchison's upside as what Garza has done so far. The draft and IFA comment is perplexing to me. Mainly because adding spots to our draft positioning now could easily be the difference between us getting an impact guy or not. If it doesn't, it still gives us much more flexibility to use our allotments in other ways, which with us having an extremely smart FO, is an obvious help. Maybe it helps us get a 1st round talent that fell, because he was a tough sign and we've got money saved up from what we took in the 1st or whatever.....An extra 500,000 in IFA money is potentially huge too. Yes, they are lottery tickets, but every cent you can invest down there gives you a better chance to add another Castro to your team or whoever. I like taking those risks, especially with our current talent evaluators.

 

As for the idea that teams are locking guys up earlier, that's MY point exactly. Which is why you need to have a truly ridiculous farm system, both to help supply and trade from. I don't know what guys will be available to trade for in the next few years, but I know this: There always ARE guys. Oakland just dealt away Cahill and Gio this past offseason. Upton's been talked about. Felix is ALWAYS brought up. Every year, there's going to be a small market team or two, that realizes they can capitalize on their next available window by trading away a guy considered a bargain. My guess is at some point over the next 4 years or so, the Pirates even trade McCutchen(sorry Jake, you guys will be good for a while). Maybe 2 years from now Oakland has so much pitching, they can trade Parker. Tampa's talked about putting any of their guys out there at times. And at some point, Price WILL be out there, because rthey're going year to year with him. But, the point, is while it's impossible to predict the exact WHO, there will be someone. There always is. And by having a ridiculous system, it's possible that you can MAKE guys available that maybe wouldn't be, BECAUSE of what you can offer. And once we get to contention, we won't be nearly as picky as who we go after from an age standpoint. Yes, we'll stick to paying guys what they're worth and not for past performance, but I could see us taking on that ace pitcher thats 35 years old in a trade or even on a 3-4 year FA contract. The point is we don't want to spend money that's a wasted salary for now evidently, when it's not going to be THAT difficult adding a Garza back when you really need him.

[dew1679666265]

Travis Wood is a guy we were HOPEFUl of becoming a midrotation guy. But most considered him a back end guy from the start. Again, there's a HUGE difference between a 3 and a 5. And I put a Hutchison's upside as what Garza has done so far. The draft and IFA comment is perplexing to me. Mainly because adding spots to our draft positioning now could easily be the difference between us getting an impact guy or not. If it doesn't, it still gives us much more flexibility to use our allotments in other ways, which with us having an extremely smart FO, is an obvious help. Maybe it helps us get a 1st round talent that fell, because he was a tough sign and we've got money saved up from what we took in the 1st or whatever.....An extra 500,000 in IFA money is potentially huge too. Yes, they are lottery tickets, but every cent you can invest down there gives you a better chance to add another Castro to your team or whoever. I like taking those risks, especially with our current talent evaluators.

 

I like taking risks like that too, but not at the severe expense of the major league roster. I just have a fundamental problem with intentionally tanking multiple major league seasons to make ourselves a little more likely to get a guy who might be able to help us a lot 3-5 seasons from now. The minor league system is very important and we need a top-notch one to continue to supply the major league roster, but we can get that top notch system without tanking multiple seasons for slight player improvements.

 

And on the Wood/Hutchison issue, yes we were hopeful that Wood would become a mid-rotation pitcher, just like we'd be hopeful that Hutchison would become a mid-rotation pitcher. It's not a guarantee that Hutchison hits his ceiling, and it's actually more likely than not that he doesn't. That's why I so staunchly believe we should get a high upside, (near) major league ready arm as the centerpiece for Garza - so that if/when he doesn't reach his upside, he's still somewhat comparable to the player we gave up.

 

As for the idea that teams are locking guys up earlier, that's MY point exactly. Which is why you need to have a truly ridiculous farm system, both to help supply and trade from. I don't know what guys will be available to trade for in the next few years, but I know this: There always ARE guys. Oakland just dealt away Cahill and Gio this past offseason. Upton's been talked about. Felix is ALWAYS brought up. Every year, there's going to be a small market team or two, that realizes they can capitalize on their next available window by trading away a guy considered a bargain. My guess is at some point over the next 4 years or so, the Pirates even trade McCutchen(sorry Jake, you guys will be good for a while). Maybe 2 years from now Oakland has so much pitching, they can trade Parker. Tampa's talked about putting any of their guys out there at times. And at some point, Price WILL be out there, because rthey're going year to year with him. But, the point, is while it's impossible to predict the exact WHO, there will be someone. There always is. And by having a ridiculous system, it's possible that you can MAKE guys available that maybe wouldn't be, BECAUSE of what you can offer. And once we get to contention, we won't be nearly as picky as who we go after from an age standpoint. Yes, we'll stick to paying guys what they're worth and not for past performance, but I could see us taking on that ace pitcher thats 35 years old in a trade or even on a 3-4 year FA contract. The point is we don't want to spend money that's a wasted salary for now evidently, when it's not going to be THAT difficult adding a Garza back when you really need him.

 

I'm not arguing we shouldn't have a top notch farm system, I'm arguing that we shouldn't sacrifice multiple seasons to make it happen. You talked previously about wanting to get one of Rodon/Ward in 2014, but you never answered what happens if we don't get them? Since we seem to have to have one of them in our system before we can think about competing, do we sacrifice seasons until a comparable elite prospect is available? Or do we just take what we can get and start building then? And if we could build a contender then without Rodon/Ward, why can't we now?

 

This is a potential never-ending cycle you're talking about. There's always another elite prospect we could go get or another 19 year old high upside guy in A ball we can trade for if we're willing to sacrifice another ML season or two, so where does it stop? Why are we ready to start building if we get Rodon or Ward in our system, but not before? And was it really worth it if we sacrifice a ML season or two more and then don't get Rodon/Ward?

 

I also think you're making it way easier than it actually is to get a young, elite superstar when there's maybe 1-2 available per season. There are more teams than ever that can make the postseason and likely fewer players like what you're describing on the market. Best case scenario, we better be willing to pay a king's ransom just to be in the running for some of these players. Worst case scenario is the year we're finally ready to try to contend, nobody comes available and we either overpay for a lesser player or put off contention for a year. We need to be ready to make a move for a young superstar should one come available, but we should not bank on being able to get one at our whim. It's not smart management.

[neely crenshaw]

I'm thinking that if they are willing to pay Z 15 mil to not pitch here, they'll be happy to pay that or more for someone to actually pitch for us. I don't see the spending as being an issue.

On the other hand, does it make much sense to spend 20 mil to sign a guy when it might make us 5 or 10 wins better? I just keep thinking that when their guy is out there, they'll get him but they won't overspend in order to just a get a "guy".

They may have made a play for Hamels as a difference maker next year, but I don't think they'll drop coin to get Blanton if he happens to be the best guy out there.

[dew1679666265]

I'm thinking that if they are willing to pay Z 15 mil to not pitch here, they'll be happy to pay that or more for someone to actually pitch for us. I don't see the spending as being an issue.

On the other hand, does it make much sense to spend 20 mil to sign a guy when it might make us 5 or 10 wins better? I just keep thinking that when their guy is out there, they'll get him but they won't overspend in order to just a get a "guy".

They may have made a play for Hamels as a difference maker next year, but I don't think they'll drop coin to get Blanton if he happens to be the best guy out there.

 

I'm at a loss as to how this doesn't apply to Garza. You're making a number of different arguments here and I'm struggling to see how they're related.

 

You're not finding a Hamels type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency, you're not even going to find a Garza type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency. My point is we have a chance to keep a very good pitcher and help ourselves in building for the future and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for us to trade him for a decent young player and a few longshots with upside when we don't need to do that.

[abuck1220]

I'm thinking that if they are willing to pay Z 15 mil to not pitch here, they'll be happy to pay that or more for someone to actually pitch for us.

 

THIS GUY GETS IT.

[pccubfan]

I'm thinking that if they are willing to pay Z 15 mil to not pitch here, they'll be happy to pay that or more for someone to actually pitch for us. I don't see the spending as being an issue.

On the other hand, does it make much sense to spend 20 mil to sign a guy when it might make us 5 or 10 wins better? I just keep thinking that when their guy is out there, they'll get him but they won't overspend in order to just a get a "guy".

They may have made a play for Hamels as a difference maker next year, but I don't think they'll drop coin to get Blanton if he happens to be the best guy out there.

 

I'm at a loss as to how this doesn't apply to Garza. You're making a number of different arguments here and I'm struggling to see how they're related.

 

You're not finding a Hamels type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency, you're not even going to find a Garza type player at Garza's pricetag in free agency. My point is we have a chance to keep a very good pitcher and help ourselves in building for the future and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for us to trade him for a decent young player and a few longshots with upside when we don't need to do that.

 

If the FO's master plan doesn't include them seriously competing until 2015, then you're using up 40% of Garza's contract, and probably his best years during the contract, to be mediocre. It would seem that the FO could make a deal for Garza that would include a player(s) that would be much more useful to the team in 2015-2017 timeframe for which Garza will be signed for much less money. For an extended Garza to make sense I really think the Cubs have to plan on being contenders in 2014.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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

 

That's a very convenient, arbitrary endpoint.

 

xFIP rank since year:

 

2009: 49th

2010: 39th

2011: 14th

2012: 19th

 

I have some reservations about xFIP (zomg, the one-year correlation is fractionally better than all our previous DIPS ERA substitutes. We've discovered a new, indisputable fact!!!), but I'll go along with it for the purposes of this discussion.

 

It's also worth noting that he's thrown significantly fewer innings than most of the TOR pitchers around him in that 14th/19th area, which diminishes his value.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

We are already getting his age-29 season. I think it's optimistic in the extreme to think that he might take an extension that buys out only a couple of his FA years. The extension starts with year 30, and it's going to take him *at least* through 33 and probably longer.

 

His peripherals have definitely not been improving the last few years. Steady? Sure. But he's in the middle of his prime right now.

[davell]

Dew, if you want an elite farm system, how do you propose us getting one, without sucking? One more bad season and we'll have enough ammo and enough players that we know what to expect from, that we'll be able to make major moves forward. The reason the system IS so important, is so when those elite guts come available, we can go get them AND still have plenty left over. One more season of being bad, with where it sets us up after that is a bigtime advantage, in my mind. BTW, the differences between Wood and Hutchison are HUGE from a scouting perspective. Most everyone would tell you he's a much safer play going forward than a Teavis Wood ever was. I'm sure I'm forgetting to address a few things here, but my damn Ipad konked out a while ago midpost, so I've lost my train of thought somewhat.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dew, if you want an elite farm system, how do you propose us getting one, without sucking? One more bad season and we'll have enough ammo and enough players that we know what to expect from, that we'll be able to make major moves forward. The reason the system IS so important, is so when those elite guts come available, we can go get them AND still have plenty left over. One more season of being bad, with where it sets us up after that is a bigtime advantage, in my mind. BTW, the differences between Wood and Hutchison are HUGE from a scouting perspective. Most everyone would tell you he's a much safer play going forward than a Teavis Wood ever was. I'm sure I'm forgetting to address a few things here, but my damn Ipad konked out a while ago midpost, so I've lost my train of thought somewhat.

 

How to get an elite farm system without tanking... hmm, that's a tough one.

 

Could we hire a front office that made its name by building an elite farm system with incredible scouting and late-round picks?

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, is it your contention that the new rules make it impossible to build a farm without being terrible?

[davell]

Yeah, is it your contention that the new rules make it impossible to build a farm without being terrible?

definitely plays a major part in it. Like I said earliertoo though that didn't get a bite, I honestly think the renovation is playing a very major part in why we're going down this road. But now that we're well down it already, I truly don't see the harm in sucking next year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah, is it your contention that the new rules make it impossible to build a farm without being terrible?

definitely plays a major part in it. Like I said earliertoo though that didn't get a bite, I honestly think the renovation is playing a very major part in why we're going down this road. But now that we're well down it already, I truly don't see the harm in sucking next year.

 

I think it's very possible. I'm kind of at the point where I'm tired of predicting what they'll do because they know and we don't and that's that.

 

But it seems very possible that they are taking a much, much longer view of this than we thought when they were hired, including taking significant money away from MLB payroll and investing it in the Wrigley renovations, which should create new revenue streams later on.

[davell]

Yeah, it is what it is. Whatever the plan IS, I'm very confident these guts will execute it as well as anyone can. Obviously, it sucks we don't KNOW the plan, but it's also a testament to how tightlipped these guys are, that we don't.

[Guest]

Yeah, is it your contention that the new rules make it impossible to build a farm without being terrible?

 

I think they make it far more difficult to acquire elite amateur talent than it used to be.

[dew1679666265]

We are already getting his age-29 season. I think it's optimistic in the extreme to think that he might take an extension that buys out only a couple of his FA years. The extension starts with year 30, and it's going to take him *at least* through 33 and probably longer.

 

I was a little off with my math earlier. I think a deal will very likely be five years, I don't see any way he gets a contract the same length as Hamels just signed. Therefore, if he signs an extension this offseason, I think there's a good chance it'll start next season - giving him a raise in 2013 and buying out 4 free agent years, meaning we'd have him during his age 29-33 seasons. If he signs it during the season next year, it'd kick in after the year obviously and would carry us through his age 30-34 seasons.

 

He'll clearly be in decline in the latter stages of that contract, but I don't know that he's likely to decline considerably in that time frame.

 

His peripherals have definitely not been improving the last few years. Steady? Sure. But he's in the middle of his prime right now.

 

I was looking at GB% and K/9 specifically as improving - this is his highest GB% of his career and the first time in his career that he's had 8+ K/9 in back to back seasons.

[dew1679666265]

If the FO's master plan doesn't include them seriously competing until 2015, then you're using up 40% of Garza's contract, and probably his best years during the contract, to be mediocre. It would seem that the FO could make a deal for Garza that would include a player(s) that would be much more useful to the team in 2015-2017 timeframe for which Garza will be signed for much less money. For an extended Garza to make sense I really think the Cubs have to plan on being contenders in 2014.

 

I don't know the FO's master plan, so I won't theorize on it. What I do know is that I don't see any reason to tank two more seasons before we try to win again, so I don't have a problem in that regard over bringing Garza back.

[XZero771679666304]

Yeah, is it your contention that the new rules make it impossible to build a farm without being terrible?

 

I think they make it far more difficult to acquire elite amateur talent than it used to be.

 

I think the changes made competing and making any substantive improvements to the system this year highly improbable, given the roster Theo & Jed inherited.

 

We'll never know, but I'd bet that of the old rules had remained, the offseason would have gone differently, at least to a degree.

[dew1679666265]

Dew, if you want an elite farm system, how do you propose us getting one, without sucking?

 

Well, we've been sucking for a couple seasons now and we'll probably kinda suck in 2013 even if we keep Garza and add a piece or two. We've added a few elite pieces and have a couple in the majors already. We have a chance at least next season to grab another 1-2 and hopefully more and then at that point you do what every other team in the league that tries to win does, you use every advantage you have (and we have more than most) and you find players who fit what you want to do and develop them well.

 

I know you don't like to hear that, but ultimately your success in your farm system comes down to how well you execute the process. I don't buy that only the 3-5 worst teams in baseball will come away with elite talent each year. They might have a slightly better chance with a little more money available to be spent, but we hold an advantage over pretty much every team because we have some of the best talent evaluators in the game. If the only way to get elite talent in the new system is to be awful, then the elite talent in the minors of contenders will dry up pretty quick and they won't be able to replace them.

 

Again, you've yet to answer this question, but what happens if we tank next year, end up with the #3 pick and miss on the two elite talents you want - Rodon and Ward? If your answer is just do our best with what's left and then start building, then I'll ask why can't that building process start now? If we were guaranteed to get one of the two and the one we were guaranteed to get was a Harper/Strasburg/Prior type prospect, then I might be more open to tanking one more season. But I'd be pretty pissed if we tanked the 2013 season, finished 3rd, and didn't even get one of the guys we wanted.

 

BTW, the differences between Wood and Hutchison are HUGE from a scouting perspective. Most everyone would tell you he's a much safer play going forward than a Teavis Wood ever was. I'm sure I'm forgetting to address a few things here, but my damn Ipad konked out a while ago midpost, so I've lost my train of thought somewhat.

 

I've never said he would be Travis Wood, I said he'd be a better version of Wood. But nonetheless, if he doesn't hit his ceiling, then he'd be a nice player but hardly worth trading a legitimate TOR starter for on his own, and that's the most likely scenario if the rest of the trade is a 19 year old in A ball.

[sneakypower]

That's a very convenient, arbitrary endpoint.

why go further back to when he pitched with a completely different repertoire? it's the only one representative of what he is going forward

[Magnetic Curses]

Dew, if you want an elite farm system, how do you propose us getting one, without sucking? One more bad season and we'll have enough ammo and enough players that we know what to expect from, that we'll be able to make major moves forward. The reason the system IS so important, is so when those elite guts come available, we can go get them AND still have plenty left over. One more season of being bad, with where it sets us up after that is a bigtime advantage, in my mind. BTW, the differences between Wood and Hutchison are HUGE from a scouting perspective. Most everyone would tell you he's a much safer play going forward than a Teavis Wood ever was. I'm sure I'm forgetting to address a few things here, but my damn Ipad konked out a while ago midpost, so I've lost my train of thought somewhat.

 

How to get an elite farm system without tanking... hmm, that's a tough one.

 

Could we hire a front office that made its name by building an elite farm system with incredible scouting and late-round picks?

 

in a different era, that inexplicably ended mere months after we got the guy who was good at doing it the old way.

[davell]

Dew, I have no clue how the rest of that draft shapes up. Ir's extremely early. The point I'm trying to reiterate here though, is we're not winning a World Series next year. If Garza is dealt away, I can't for the life of me understand why the very simplistic approach I mentioned earlier today doesn't sit well with you. To me, you're too hung up on Garza being close to elite. He's a really solid pitcher, no doubt, but he's replaceable. Maybe within the exact teade for him, maybe not. But adding another definitive cheap answer to the rotation, whether he turns into a 2,3, or 4, along with a high ceiling, very well thought of arm, as well, seems like a no-brainer to me. Especially if you can then take Garza's money and spend it elsewhere. The draft positioning and IFA money being higher is just an added bonus. If we were remotely close to being a contender, my tune would be different. But we're not. And keeping Garza doesn't change that. Getting a younger, cheaper version or at least a reasonable facsimile of, along with a big arm that within a single year could turn into a massive trade chip, having the extra cash to spend, and the additions of bigger impact guys thru the draft and IFA puts us in a much better position longterm, than just keeping Garza.