Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davell]

Garza's bullpen was cut short today. He'll try again tomorrow. Tuesday is up in the air, he said it's because he didn't do anything these past couple of days, due to his new kid.

[dew1679666265]

If we were remotely close to being a contender, my tune would be different. But we're not.

 

This jumped out at me as a key difference I think we have in this debate. You see, I don't think we're as far away as you think from being at least respectable and some luck away from possibly contending. Bear with me on this and keep in mind this is not what I'm predicting the Theo regime will do - nobody on this board knows what their plan is - just what I think we could do if we actually want to start winning games again. Also, I'm going to throw out some numbers, but they're more general suggestions than actualities, so don't get too hung up on them.

 

If we keep Garza, say on a 5/85 extension, and pick up Liriano on a 1 year deal with an option then we field this rotation:

1) Garza

2) Shark

3) Liriano

4) Wood

5) Raley?

 

Then on the offensive side, we pick up Upton on either a 1-year prove-it deal or on something like 4/48. We then can either swing a trade of Soriano/DeJesus or keep Jackson in AAA. Let's say we keep both - Soriano still doesn't draw interest and the offers for DeJesus just aren't worth it. That gives us this lineup:

RF) DeJesus

SS) Castro

1B) Rizzo

LF) Soriano

CF) Upton

2B) Barney

3B) Vitters/Stewart

C) Castillo/Clevenger

 

The fifth rotation spot is a pretty big question, but I tried to be as conservative as I could with signing players - we could easily pursue an Edwin Jackson or even Anibal Sanchez if we wanted to commit further. Offensively, we're better than this year but still a bit on the weak side. There's a lot of projectability with it, though, and it could be decent if Soriano keeps up anything close to what he's done this year and one of Vitters/Stewart surprises. The defense, however, is above average at every spot but third (and maybe catcher, I can't think of Castillo's defense off the top of my head) and very good at a number of them.

 

Is that team a playoff contender? Not without some luck, but it's also not the 100+ loss abomination we see this year. Field a competent bench and get some luck with the pen and maybe we give .500 a good run. The real positive is we're still getting a number of young guys considerable playing time and getting ready for a serious push in 2014.

 

And as an aside to all of this, between June 25 (Rizzo's callup) and July 30 (the day before the mini-firesale) we were 19-10. Small sample size, but it's an indication that this team has some talent now that we've got a couple big bats (Rizzo/Soriano) in the middle of the lineup.

[SouthSideRyan]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

[dew1679666265]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

 

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for.

[davell]

I have no problem if we win 80 games next year, if we've got a young team. It means we ARE closer than what I imagine. But, using your team, I could put Brett in for Upton and Hutchison in for Garza, spend on a few vet bullpen arms and sign a 5th starter like Ervin Santana, instead of Raley and think I've got just as good of a team. Except I'd have added a really nice arm to the system and have more payroll flexibility moving forward.

[SouthSideRyan]

I have no problem if we win 80 games next year, if we've got a young team. It means we ARE closer than what I imagine. But, using your team, I could put Brett in for Upton and Hutchison in for Garza, spend on a few vet bullpen arms and sign a 5th starter like Ervin Santana, instead of Raley and think I've got just as good of a team. Except I'd have added a really nice arm to the system and have more payroll flexibility moving forward.

 

How is that just as good of a team?

[SouthSideRyan]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

 

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for.

 

68-94.

[davell]

I have no problem if we win 80 games next year, if we've got a young team. It means we ARE closer than what I imagine. But, using your team, I could put Brett in for Upton and Hutchison in for Garza, spend on a few vet bullpen arms and sign a 5th starter like Ervin Santana, instead of Raley and think I've got just as good of a team. Except I'd have added a really nice arm to the system and have more payroll flexibility moving forward.

 

How is that just as good of a team?

Personally, I'm not that down as far as Brett goes. I also am not convinced Garza's worth more than a win or two over Hutchison. I think adding a few pen arms and the difference from Santana to Raley makes up for the losses of Upton to Brett and Garza to Hutchison. That said, in neither case, do I think it's an 80ish win team either.

[dew1679666265]

I have no problem if we win 80 games next year, if we've got a young team. It means we ARE closer than what I imagine. But, using your team, I could put Brett in for Upton and Hutchison in for Garza, spend on a few vet bullpen arms and sign a 5th starter like Ervin Santana, instead of Raley and think I've got just as good of a team. Except I'd have added a really nice arm to the system and have more payroll flexibility moving forward.

 

I don't see any way that team is as good as the team I listed, especially since we'd still have plenty of payroll room in my scenario to pick up a Santana, Jackson, or someone similar for the 5th starter role as well.

 

Upton's a clear upgrade over BJax, even if Upton doesn't rebound all the way back to the 4-5 WAR player he's been 4 of the past 6 seasons.

Santana has had one season comparable to the season Garza is currently having and that was back in 2008. This season Santana has a 4.63 xFIP and a -.5 WAR. Any improvement Hutchison is over Raley is completely overshadowed by the gap between Garza and Santana.

 

Your team is probably a lot closer to this year's than it is to 80 wins.

[dew1679666265]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

 

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for.

 

68-94.

 

Thanks.

[davell]

I think Brett, K's be damned would put up a .700+ OPS as a fulltime starter next year. Solid defensively. I think Hutchison, as a 22 year old can put up a 4ish ERA, 1.30ish WHIP in a full NL season as a 22 year old. That's where we differ on our teams. Hell, give me your exact team, minus Garza and plus Hutchison, with Syndergaard in Daytona and I'm quite happy. And if Hutchison puts up the numbers I mentioned, you'd have to feel much better going forward, with him, Syndergaard, and 12 mill extra to spend in other areas.

[dew1679666265]

I think Brett, K's be damned would put up a .700+ OPS as a fulltime starter next year. Solid defensively.

 

Upton is great defensively and has a career .749 OPS that likely rises upon a move to the NL Central.

 

I think Hutchison, as a 22 year old can put up a 4ish ERA, 1.30ish WHIP in a full NL season as a 22 year old.

 

So basically the season he's having this year (4.60 ERA, 1.35 WHIP) that's leading to a sub-2 WAR (1.8 if he started 33 games). Garza's on pace for a 3.5 WAR and has shown the ability to be as high as 5 WAR. I really don't see how they're comparable at all.

 

That's where we differ on our teams. Hell, give me your exact team, minus Garza and plus Hutchison, with Syndergaard in Daytona and I'm quite happy. And if Hutchison puts up the numbers I mentioned, you'd have to feel much better going forward, with him, Syndergaard, and 12 mill extra to spend in other areas.

 

I really wouldn't feel better because we wouldn't have a TOR pitcher. Maybe Shark turns into one, maybe a couple years from now one appears on the trade market, maybe Syndergaard eventually turns into one, but none of those options help us next year and I simply don't believe we should be intentionally tanking more seasons. And that's not even considering the risk involved in hoping we get a TOR pitcher somewhere down the line.

[davell]

You just said Upton's stats would be better moving from the AL East to the NL Central, but you dismissed a currently 21 year old SP doing the same? Age alone, dictates him getting better, much less the move out of that division. I think you're worried way too much about finding a TOR starter. The money saved, the extra prospects, we'll get one. Honestly, I'll be very surprised if heading into 2014, we don't have one. And I'll be just as surprised if by 2015, we don't have 2. Neither of which is Garza.

[dew1679666265]

You just said Upton's stats would be better moving from the AL East to the NL Central, but you dismissed a currently 21 year old SP doing the same? Age alone, dictates him getting better, much less the move out of that division. I think you're worried way too much about finding a TOR starter. The money saved, the extra prospects, we'll get one. Honestly, I'll be very surprised if heading into 2014, we don't have one. And I'll be just as surprised if by 2015, we don't have 2. Neither of which is Garza.

 

I was using what you said you expected out of Hutchison. And I said Upton likely could get better, not would. If Hutchison's upside is that of a 3rd starter, mid-rotation guy then I have trouble seeing his stats improving that much. They likely would some, but not nearly enough to get comparable with Garza.

 

And I think you've got the idea that it's way too easy to get a TOR starter. If it were as easy as you make it sound, a bunch more teams would have legitimate TOR starters.

[davell]

I think part of our disagreement is I'm just not sold that Garza IS a TOR guy. Although, I fully admit he's good. That said, I honestly will be surprised if when we have our [expletive] together, he slots in higher than 3 for us longterm. In other thrwads I'm trying to target Atlanta and Oakland for some of their young pitching, by the way. I'd LOVE to find a way to buy low on Brett Anderson. I want us to revisit Delgado. And while I'm using him as an example, I do obviously rwally like Hutchison. My perfect scenario this offswason would be teading Garza, with Hutchison as the main piece and winding up with Anderson somehow. No clue what it'd take to get him, but Oakland needs an entire left side of the infield. I could see Beane valueing Barney pretty highly, maybe him, Vitters, and Vogelbach could entice him? Too much? Too little? Am I throwing spare parts out there? I honestly have no idea, but Anderson, Shark, Hutchison, and Wood, with a vet at 4/5 seems like a really solid future rotation. And certainly gives us the ability to go sign or trade for a true ace to join them in the next year or two as well.

[Guest]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

 

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for.

 

68-94.

 

That pace is probably about to take a pretty big hit.

[Backtobanks]

Of course this year's 100+ loss abomination of a team isn't a 100+ loss abomination.

 

Yeah, that was too strong. I got a bit carried away. Out of curiosity, what is our current pace? We'd have to go 19-40 to finish the year with 100 losses, but I'm not sure what we're actually on pace for.

 

68-94.

 

That pace is probably about to take a pretty big hit.

 

I take it you don't think Germano/Volstad/Coleman can match Dempster and Maholm's production. :lol:

[toonsterwu]

On Upton - I think there has to be some legitimate concern on giving him a 4 year deal. Here's a guy whose defense has always been a touch overhyped. UZR has him as an average-ish defender for the last 3 years now. UZR certainly has it's flaws, but it's 3 years running of roughly similar numbers.

 

Offensively, I haven't followed enough to know what his problems are this year (or what his bigger problems are), but he's becoming a far more ... aggressive player at the plate and the power has dipped this year. It could be an anomaly (although he's been steadily becoming more aggressive each year), but it's a bothersome piece of data.

 

As horrible as Brett Jackson has been ... if BJ Upton isn't a plus defensive CF, and UZR would suggest he isn't, I'm not sure the difference from Brett to BJ is worth making a multi-year commitment to BJ Upton.

[toonsterwu]

Since Hutchison is being talked about, I wanted to put my 2 cents in and say that, while I'm no fan of Hutchison, if Marcum can come over and do what he's done, I don't see why the expectations for Hutchison in a trade can't be similar to what Marcum's done (not saying it will, just saying expectations). Keep in mind that Marcum only had that one superb control year (2010 ... in 2008 and 2009, his walk rates were in the mid-upper 2's).

 

When you factor in that Hutchison has better stuff, and yeah, I don't see why he couldn't potentially do what Marcum has done. Considering that Hutchison has a long track record of solid to plus command in the minors, it's reasonable, as of now, to expect that he'll bring the walk rate down a bit more.

 

Again ... not a huge fan of Hutchison, just tossing out my 2 cents on this mini-discussion here.

[toonsterwu]

If we were remotely close to being a contender, my tune would be different. But we're not.

 

If we keep Garza, say on a 5/85 extension, and pick up Liriano on a 1 year deal with an option then we field this rotation:

1) Garza

2) Shark

3) Liriano

4) Wood

5) Raley?

 

 

RF) DeJesus

SS) Castro

1B) Rizzo

LF) Soriano

CF) Upton

2B) Barney

3B) Vitters/Stewart

C) Castillo/Clevenger

 

Here's the thing - is a potential, on-paper year run of respectability worth it? Because I'll be honest, that team you have up there, while it could be respectable, I could also see it be ... horrid. 100 loss horrid. Reasons why (just playing devil's advocate here, stuff in random order):

 

1. It's not hard to envision Upton's increasing aggressiveness continue, dragging down whatever offensive value he might have even further.

2. Not hard to imagine Soriano having a sharp decline.

3. Any lineup where Barney might be remotely considered a 6th hitter is just bad (granted, I would've put 3rd over Barney)

4. Liriano is a big health risk with an arm that could fall.

5. Wood's numbers are closer to last year than his 2010 campaign ...

6. Raley has fringe stuff

 

Now, I know this is a mock scenario and that there are a lot of other ways to throw together things, but even your mock scenario to respectability is fraught with huge risks that could add in a burdensome contract on a player who, despite being in his prime age range, is trending the wrong way. There's been guys who somehow started falling earlier, age-wise, than expected.

 

_____

 

There is, without a doubt, an argument to keeping Garza. Furthermore, there is, without a doubt, a legitimate point that, for lack of better analogy, you can't keep passing go and collecting 200, and at some point, you've got to take a chance. I just think that this is a year early to be making those moves. One more year from now, and you'll hopefully start having some solid prospects moving into the upper levels AND you'll have a lot more financial flexibility. With the way the draft is now, I just don't know if a risky on paper year of respectability is worth it.

___

 

Now, my loose thinking, as of 1:11 pm on 8/4/2012, is, if you extend Garza (and not just keep him and hope he doesn't get hurt to deal him at midseason), then I think you have to start trying to make more aggressive moves than Upton and gambling on an arm like Liriano's. I don't know if a justifiable upgrade in CF and 3rd base are out there that we can get. I'm just not convinced that BJ Upton is worth the years and money when you have a similar player in Brett Jackson, who is better defensively than given credit for (although not plus), so I really wouldn't pencil in BJ on anything unless you deal Brett in a package.

 

But, I noted this somewhere, if the effort is to be respectable, and you keep Garza, I think you have to got out and try and get two rotation arms this winter, guys that can slot in as your 3/4 if possible. You don't go into the year with Travis Wood penciled in as anything more than an end of the rotation arm if you want to be respectable. If he's better than that, great, but his numbers are closer to last year's than 2010, which is what the optimistic hopes were. He's still young, but the point is, you don't depend on a lot from him. Get an innings eater on a short deal, akin to the Maholm situation, and try for a slightly bigger ticket item that comes with a bit less risk than Liriano. It might not be a top tier arm this offseason (Greinke/Sanchez), but a good, quality starter (since I'm having fun playing hypothetical GM right now, it could even be the trade market where you could perhaps try to see what the Rays would want to move James Shields, but that's probably shooting a bit high). Then, I think, much as I hate to sign pen arms, you try to sign one guy with some late inning potential to give yourself insurance. I like Alberto Cabrera a lot, but I don't know if I want him as my main backup option at closer (and this is assuming Marmol is here, which is debatable).

 

In this mini-situation, you've set up a solid rotation with a solid pen. I run with the kids (Jackson in CF, Vitters at 3rd or LF). The lineup will be pretty ... rough around the edges, and the pitching staff could easily get frustrated. If you are clearly out of it at midseason (a high probability), you flip that 2nd FA arm (the short term veteran) in a trade. Then, after 2013, you have a better idea of what the kids can do, and in the winter of 2013, you can likely be more aggressive in the trade market, with a stronger system.

 

____

 

Anyhow, that's my random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon. I'll throw another one out because I'm having fun with scenarios today - if we want to talk about a CF upgrade ... there's a lot of speculation that the Red Sox might shop Ellsbury this offseason ... I don't think we fit in a direct swap, but it'd be an interesting idea to explore.

[davell]

Just curious, anyone with ESPNInsider? What was Bowden's Garza trade that should have happened?

[Guest]

Just curious, anyone with ESPNInsider? What was Bowden's Garza trade that should have happened?

 

Garza to Arizona for Corbin and Pollock

[Guest]

Here's the thing - is a potential, on-paper year run of respectability worth it? Because I'll be honest, that team you have up there, while it could be respectable, I could also see it be ... horrid. 100 loss horrid.

 

Worth what? What is being risked? Money that is otherwise not being spent? A modest payroll amount 4 years down the line? No long term assets are being sold off for temporary upgrades, or prospects being blocked for short term fixes.

[El Duderino]

Just curious, anyone with ESPNInsider? What was Bowden's Garza trade that should have happened?

 

Garza to Arizona for Corbin and Pollock

 

Jim Bowden, lol.

[davell]

Just curious, anyone with ESPNInsider? What was Bowden's Garza trade that should have happened?

 

Garza to Arizona for Corbin and Pollock

 

Thanks TT, but ugh. If that's the best we can do, I gotta admit, I'd change my tune completely on what to do with him. But, it's Bowden and I think he's off on value here.

Edited August 4, 2012 by davell