Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well then, let's cash in on all that value Blake DeWitt's got while the gettin's good.

 

I heard Ian Stewart is available. He kinda sucks, but he's available.

[Guest]

Well then, let's cash in on all that value Blake DeWitt's got while the gettin's good.

 

I heard Ian Stewart is available. He kinda sucks, but he's available.

 

He's cheap though, so they'll probably ask for Castro as a starting point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well then, let's cash in on all that value Blake DeWitt's got while the gettin's good.

 

I heard Ian Stewart is available. He kinda sucks, but he's available.

 

He's cheap though, so they'll probably ask for Castro as a starting point.

 

Mineaswell do it. At four more years, he's only a mid-term asset.

[davearm2]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more.

 

Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it.

Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability.

 

If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now.

 

If you're trying to win now, you don't trade away Matt Garza (unless it somehow makes the bigleague team better immediately).

 

Conflict of interest was the wrong term. Conflict of priorities would be more like it.

[Brian]

The starting pitching for this team could get ugly

 

would it shake out like this?

 

Dempster

Z

Wells

Samardzjia

Lopez

[Clem Fandango]

The starting pitching for this team could get ugly

 

would it shake out like this?

 

Dempster

Z

Wells

Samardzjia

Lopez

 

I have to think Cashner would be looked at before Lopez

[RammyFanny]

The starting pitching for this team could get ugly

 

would it shake out like this?

 

Dempster

Z

Wells

Samardzjia

Lopez

 

Trading Garza frees up about 9 million. Maybe save 4 million in a Soriano deal and boom, you can sign Kuroda for two years 27 million and likely get somewhat similar production without making a dent in the amount of money we currently have available to spend.

 

In my scenaio, you'd still likely have around 51 million left (current 40 million available + 11 that would have been allocated to draft) to use on Darvish, Fielder, and likely another solid signing. You get a likely improved rotation (Darvish/Kuroda/Dempster/Zambrano/Wells), you get Fielder, and you get what is hopefully multiple top prospects (can I get a Wil Myers?). Still can trade for Headley.

 

Just throwing that out there, as most people tend to forget the money we save in a Garza deal can go directly towards replacing him. Obviously, this is moot if we don't get the right offer of top prospects.

[Sammy Sofa]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more.

 

Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it.

Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability.

 

If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now.

 

Yup, that's the only possible outcome of such a signing. Absolutely no regard for the future signing bums like those.

[apete6]

The starting pitching for this team could get ugly

 

would it shake out like this?

 

Dempster

Z

Wells

Samardzjia

Lopez

 

Trading Garza frees up about 9 million. Maybe save 4 million in a Soriano deal and boom, you can sign Kuroda for two years 27 million and likely get somewhat similar production without making a dent in the amount of money we currently have available to spend.

 

In my scenaio, you'd still likely have around 51 million left (current 40 million available + 11 that would have been allocated to draft) to use on Darvish, Fielder, and likely another solid signing. You get a likely improved rotation (Darvish/Kuroda/Dempster/Zambrano/Wells), you get Fielder, and you get what is hopefully multiple top prospects (can I get a Wil Myers?). Still can trade for Headley.

 

Just throwing that out there, as most people tend to forget the money we save in a Garza deal can go directly towards replacing him. Obviously, this is moot if we don't get the right offer of top prospects.

 

I guess, but I'm not really wild about signing a 35 year old Hiroki Kuroda to a $13.5 AAV deal, especially after he's pitched in the cavernous and hitting starved NL West. Those prospects better be pretty damn highly regarded.

[davearm2]

AceCubbies' unnamed source has joined the "Garza will probably be dealt" bandwagon:

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/06/winter-meetings-tuesday-morning-garza-wilson-headley-stewart-hudson-barney-russell-pena-zambrano/

 

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen.

 

Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more.

 

Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it.

Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability.

 

If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now.

 

Yup, that's the only possible outcome of such a signing. Absolutely no regard for the future signing bums like those.

We heard you the first 5,000 times

[Guest]

Evidence suggests otherwise.

[davearm2]

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Why? Because my opinion hasn't changed?

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes.

[Tracer Bullet]

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

 

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset.

 

knew it couldn't last

[Little Slide Rooter]

As good as Garza is, some people don't seem to be wrapping their head around the fact that this is the first time I can recall that the Cubs have had this good of a trade chip on the block and the ball was 100% in their court. There's no controversy surrounding him, no obvious attempt to railroad him out of town no salary dump. Just a great player under team control for another 2 years. If we do it, I think we can get 2 near big league ready young players and another high ceiling prospect. I'd still love to target Rasmus and Drabek from Toronto and think we could get them and another high ceiling guy, although that would give us 3 lefties across the outfield for the next 2-3 years. Basically shop him around and if we don't get exactly what we want he's starting for us on opening day and we play the same game again in July.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

 

And every game that he pitches, every week that you hold on to him during the regular season, another bit of his value as a cost-controlled player gets spent. Once you spend it, there's no getting it back. Short-term asset.

 

knew it couldn't last

 

I know. It was fun while it lasted, but eventually people couldn't resist going back to pointlessly dismissive statements.

 

Which part are you disagreeing with, exactly?

 

1) A significant part of Garza's value is in his relatively low salary because of his cost-controlled status, which lasts for two more seasons.

 

2) As time goes on, that value diminishes. 1.5 seasons of cost-controlled Garza is not as valuable as two seasons of cost-controlled Garza.

 

3) At this point, Garza is only under team control for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. That makes him a "short-term" asset.

 

The only one that's remotely controversial is point 3, because some people will want to include a hypothetical extension into his value to the Cubs, which I think is absurd. You mineaswell include other teams' free agents that you want in assessing the state of the team, if we are just going to assume we can sign players we want.

 

I'm not saying the Cubs absolutely have to trade Garza because he's a short-term asset. There's nothing wrong with spending his value in 2012 on him actually pitching in 2012. But the reason the Cubs are apparently looking into a trade is because there is a chance to turn that 2012 value into a longer-term asset, and I don't have a problem with that either if the price is right.

[jersey cubs fan]

A player's value and his status as an asset are two different things. The fact that he won't be cheap in three years doesn't pertain to the discussion.

[rawaction]

As good as Garza is, some people don't seem to be wrapping their head around the fact that this is the first time I can recall that the Cubs have had this good of a trade chip on the block and the ball was 100% in their court. There's no controversy surrounding him, no obvious attempt to railroad him out of town no salary dump. Just a great player under team control for another 2 years. If we do it, I think we can get 2 near big league ready young players and another high ceiling prospect. I'd still love to target Rasmus and Drabek from Toronto and think we could get them and another high ceiling guy, although that would give us 3 lefties across the outfield for the next 2-3 years. Basically shop him around and if we don't get exactly what we want he's starting for us on opening day and we play the same game again in July.

 

It just seems like it defeats the purpose. Best case scenario, you get 2-3 really good prospects for Garza. 2 of them pan out to be solid-to-good contributors. In a couple years, free up money from Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd, and Marmol. Then you're going to need to go out and spend big for pitching anyway when all that money comes off the books. But the Cubs already have a 27-year old top of the rotation type starter sitting in their laps, and in a couple years Garza will be the exact type of pitcher they are going to want to sign.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A player's value and his status as an asset are two different things. The fact that he won't be cheap in three years doesn't pertain to the discussion.

 

Pointless semantics.

 

In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It just seems like it defeats the purpose. Best case scenario, you get 2-3 really good prospects for Garza. 2 of them pan out to be solid-to-good contributors. In a couple years, free up money from Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd, and Marmol. Then you're going to need to go out and spend big for pitching anyway when all that money comes off the books. But the Cubs already have a 27-year old top of the rotation type starter sitting in their laps, and in a couple years Garza will be the exact type of pitcher they are going to want to sign.

 

So in two years you can have:

 

$15-20 million earmarked for Garza

 

or

 

$15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher

2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years.

 

Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

[davearm2]

It just seems like it defeats the purpose. Best case scenario, you get 2-3 really good prospects for Garza. 2 of them pan out to be solid-to-good contributors. In a couple years, free up money from Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd, and Marmol. Then you're going to need to go out and spend big for pitching anyway when all that money comes off the books. But the Cubs already have a 27-year old top of the rotation type starter sitting in their laps, and in a couple years Garza will be the exact type of pitcher they are going to want to sign.

 

So in two years you can have:

 

$15-20 million earmarked for Garza

 

or

 

$15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher

2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years.

 

Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

Well said.

 

The angle here is you trade Garza for young talent to a team that would rather not wait a year to sign Cain/Hamels/etc.

 

The risk to the Cubs is not getting anyone from the Cain/Hamels/etc. pool next offseason.

[rawaction]

It just seems like it defeats the purpose. Best case scenario, you get 2-3 really good prospects for Garza. 2 of them pan out to be solid-to-good contributors. In a couple years, free up money from Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd, and Marmol. Then you're going to need to go out and spend big for pitching anyway when all that money comes off the books. But the Cubs already have a 27-year old top of the rotation type starter sitting in their laps, and in a couple years Garza will be the exact type of pitcher they are going to want to sign.

 

So in two years you can have:

 

$15-20 million earmarked for Garza

 

or

 

$15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher

2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years.

 

Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

 

It's risky to assume you can find a pitcher later. And it's risky to assume that the players you get will become worthwhile major leaguers. You could win the trade and win in free agency in 2 years. Or you could lose in both in 2 years. Keeping Garza is the least risky thing to do. Add in the fact that he's very affordable to a team that has no other players of similar value (outside of Castro), and to a team that has a lot of financial resources and it's even less risky.

 

The Cubs aren't the pre-2011 Marlins. They don't have to rebuild. I could understand the move more if Garza was making 10Mil + but he's on a very team friendly deal. Having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good. Gotta have something to build on at some point. Without Garza, you're looking at Castro and a bunch of unproven players like Jackson, Cashner, etc.

[jersey cubs fan]

A player's value and his status as an asset are two different things. The fact that he won't be cheap in three years doesn't pertain to the discussion.

 

Pointless semantics.

 

In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable.

 

Because it's the only way you can try and defend your pointless stance?

[davearm2]

A player's value and his status as an asset are two different things. The fact that he won't be cheap in three years doesn't pertain to the discussion.

 

Pointless semantics.

 

In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable.

 

Because it's the only way you can try and defend your pointless stance?

No because there's no meaningful difference between the two. They're inextricably linked.

[davearm2]

 

It's risky to assume you can find a pitcher later. And it's risky to assume that the players you get will become worthwhile major leaguers. You could win the trade and win in free agency in 2 years. Or you could lose in both in 2 years. Keeping Garza is the least risky thing to do. Add in the fact that he's very affordable to a team that has no other players of similar value (outside of Castro), and to a team that has a lot of financial resources and it's even less risky.

 

The Cubs aren't the pre-2011 Marlins. They don't have to rebuild. I could understand the move more if Garza was making 10Mil + but he's on a very team friendly deal. Having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good. Gotta have something to build on at some point. Without Garza, you're looking at Castro and a bunch of unproven players like Jackson, Cashner, etc.

The reason to trade Garza is if you don't anticipate making a WS run within the two years you still control him.

 

Like you said, "having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good". Hence, that WS run isn't on the immediate horizon.