Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[El Duderino]

I'd rather have Villanueva and Hendricks than Corbin and Pollock.

[davell]

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.

 

Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that?

[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.

 

Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that?

 

No. I'd rather make thoughtful upgrades to the MLB roster and have the potential to get the tens of millions in revenue that come from playoff appearances than intentionally hold back the MLB roster in order to have the flexibility to add a marginally better draft pick or two. Money helps bring in better talent in the draft, but it's still too much guesswork for me to intentionally tank the end product for such a small benefit.

[Little Slide Rooter]

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.

 

Either add Chafin or replace Corbin with Skaggs, Bradley or Bauer and we'll talk.

[mookie]

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.

 

Either add Chafin or replace Corbin with Skaggs, Bradley or Bauer and we'll talk.

 

If there is any merit to that rumor, the trade didn't happen because Arizona wasn't willing to swing a proper package for Garza. His value is higher than that, and it will be higher than that in a few months. I have a feeling teams were low balling the crap out of Garza because of the injury.

[davell]

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.

 

Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that?

 

No. I'd rather make thoughtful upgrades to the MLB roster and have the potential to get the tens of millions in revenue that come from playoff appearances than intentionally hold back the MLB roster in order to have the flexibility to add a marginally better draft pick or two. Money helps bring in better talent in the draft, but it's still too much guesswork for me to intentionally tank the end product for such a small benefit.

 

Fair point obviously. That said, I don't see the options out there that could be had on short term deals that make it worth trying myself. Again, it's one more year of this, then I'd be buying for sure.

 

If I'm trying to use your method, maybe adding Marcum and McCarthy to the rotation. I doubt either gets more than 2-3 years max, maybe even not that long. Add a couple of bullpen arms on one year deals. Have a veteran SOMETHING at 3B, in case Vitters tanks. Maybe a Mark Reynolds? Maybe get Torii Hunter, let DeJesus play CF? Or is Hunter one of the "I hate Wrigley" guys anyway? At any rate, I guess Pagan could be OK. You could probably do those things and stay around 110 mill or so, is my guess, without trading anyone else. I prefer the other route though.

 

That being said, I really am thinking the renovation keeps our payroll down around 80 or so this upcoming season, maybe next as well. Although I think we'll be solid by then, even with the payroll and up it bigtime after that.

[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.

 

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:

 

That's a real knee-slapper.

[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.

 

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

 

That's assuming you think the pre-deadline team was likely to play at that pace. Arbitrary start points and all, but they first reached 18 games under 50 games ago.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that?

 

False dilemma, just because 75 wins is the mean projection on that team, doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate chance at contending. Anecdotally speaking, it seems to becoming more common where teams are flying past their pre-season projections (from wherever, BPro or the morons at ESPN) Like you said, you can't keep sitting around waiting to be an 85 win team before moving or else you'll never be an 85 win team.

[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.

 

That's assuming you think the pre-deadline team was likely to play at that pace. Arbitrary start points and all, but they first reached 18 games under 50 games ago.

 

Right, Dempster and Maholm's replacements aren't likely to be as good, but we also have Rizzo for 100% of remaining games instead of like 25%, the schedule was hardest at the beginning of the year, and the team was several games unlucky prior to their resurgence. I wouldn't expect a whole lot of deviation unless more than 1 SP tanks really hard like Davis/Coleman did last year.

[neely crenshaw]

not signing top money free agents is not "holding back" you MLB roster. It's using fiscal responsibility and using your actual roster. They added some players at a solid cost but when you are not close it does not make sense to spend a bunch to be "better" when you can't possibly spend enough to be really good, and especially really good for more than a season.

We would have had to add 3 FA starters this year because we had no idea about shark, wood or volstad. we would need to add a lot in the pen.

a 3b, a catcher, at least 1 outfielder possibly a 2b, oh and really a 1B because we could not have counted on the unknown of Rizzo or LaHair.

what's that about 150 mil(and probably more) to make you happy...and even then we would have no depth and no one trade in order to get better.

 

let them do their job, and try to do this the right way. They deserve the chance, they have the resume. We may not like it, but after all this time, I am willing to give it a try. I think we will see some improvement next year, and definitely the year after. I have no doubt that when we have the base in place, they will spend for what they need!

Seriously, how can you doubt that they will spend for players when they didn't flinch at paying 15mil for Z to not play for us

[Guest]

this thread is brutal

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

Well, I was looking at dew's scenario, which would've given a 4 year deal to BJ Upton, which is something I'm not keen on.

 

My point in the afternoon was that, if you end up committing years and money to Garza, you sort of can't just sit back. It doesn't mean you dive in headfirst, and it doesn't mean you make foolish moves (and I put, nothing personal dew, BJ Upton and a 4 year deal in that category), but aggressively shopping for a better 3rd starter and adding a cheap veteran arm would be my priorities, rather than a gamble on a SP and a 4 year deal on BJ.

 

I understand the rationale in pursuing BJ (young guy, in his prime, loads of tools, capable defensive centerfielder), I'm just not a fan of BJ and believe that, with what is in the upper levels of the system, if you sign Garza, then you keep pushing on the rotation.

[toonsterwu]

I'd rather have Villanueva and Hendricks than Corbin and Pollock.

 

I have never, ever, ever been a fan of AJ Pollock (hated the idea of drafting him that year, which a lot of Cubs fans on another site wanted), but ... as intriguing as Villanueva is, I'd rather take the mid-rotation lefty, considering the state of pitching in the system.

 

I mean, I can understand wanting Villanueva, but I still have a hard time over-looking the fact that, while he was a top 100 guy, his offensive outlooks is very similar to someone like Alcantara, and the value of a lefty arm like Corbin would seem to be a nice thing for our system, the way it is right now.

[El Duderino]

I'd rather have Villanueva and Hendricks than Corbin and Pollock.

 

I have never, ever, ever been a fan of AJ Pollock (hated the idea of drafting him that year, which a lot of Cubs fans on another site wanted), but ... as intriguing as Villanueva is, I'd rather take the mid-rotation lefty, considering the state of pitching in the system.

 

I mean, I can understand wanting Villanueva, but I still have a hard time over-looking the fact that, while he was a top 100 guy, his offensive outlooks is very similar to someone like Alcantara, and the value of a lefty arm like Corbin would seem to be a nice thing for our system, the way it is right now.

 

Corbin is hardly a lock to be a mid-rotation lefty. Plenty of people see him as a back-end guy.

[dew1679666265]

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

 

1. Upton's had one down half season, this isn't some multi-year trend. His IsoD in 2010 and 2011 were .085 and .088, his career IsoD is .083. His IsoD is down this year, but that's not a trend and may very easily not influence his seasons going forward. And just the past two seasons, even with UZR devaluing his defense, he was worth 4+ WAR. And he's been worth between 4-5 WAR for 4 of the past 6 seasons. This isn't some fringy player who's been trending downward for 2-3 seasons. This is a borderline elite player who's had a down half season. It's a red flag that should be looked into, but my interest level in Upton hasn't dropped at all because of it.

 

2. Could very easily happen, but the upswing in offense this season corresponds with dropping his bat weight so it's very realistic that he can continue this for at least one more season. It very well may not be a fluke

 

3. The lineup after Upton is pretty debateable and I would have no problem with Barney batting 7th. I just put him there because he's a bit more proven than whoever we'd have at third. In my scenario, the top of the lineup would carry us and has the potential to be very good. We'd hope for a breakout from Vitters/Stewart to make the offense good.

 

4. He's also been a very highly regarded pitcher with terrific stuff who has pitched quite well for an extended stretch this season. That's far from a reason to have really high hopes for him, but if there were a mechanical change or something that caused him to pitch better then it's perfectly reasonable to think he could continue it into next season.

 

5/6. I put these two together because they're very related. My goal in putting this team together was to avoid signing too many players in FA because I figured somebody would freak out if I had us signing 3-4 FAs (even with all but one being bargain buys) and didn't play enough young guys. I even pointed out previously that I'd be perfectly fine with grabbing an Edwin Jackson or even Anibal Sanchez to replace Raley and push Wood down to 5th starter. That would probably be my preference since Raley has little to no upside, but I didn't want my scenario being disregarded because we were spending way too much or something.

 

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.

 

I've said previously that our intent this offseason doesn't need to be - and shouldn't be - specifically to contend. It should be to add assets that can help us contend as we move forward. In my scenario we're getting lots of PT for young guys with upside, we're adding some veteran talent to the ML roster that will keep us from adding with desperation in a couple years, and we're giving ourselves a shot at respectability and maybe even contention without committing much of the future.

 

And I really don't see how $12 mil a year to a 29 year old who has posted a 4+ WAR 2 of the past 3 seasons (and 4 of the past 6) is "burdensome."

 

With the way the draft is now, I just don't know if a risky on paper year of respectability is worth it.

 

I'm not shooting for just respectability. I'm looking to add 1-2 (or more even) mid-long term pieces that can help us down the road so that we're not in a position where we have to add multiple key FAs in one offseason. It makes it easier to jump from respectable to good/great quickly in the future and it eliminates the potential for desperation if the exact right FAs/trade targets aren't available the offseason we decide we feel like spending again.

 

Respectability/contention, in my scenario, is a by-product of adding youngish, veteran talent to a pretty barren ML roster to increase our odds of getting good going forward.

[davell]

I'm not opposed to adding major league talent, but I like tge one or two year contract, stopgap approach for one more season. That said, if we DO go looking for major league talent, my favorite scenario by far includes trading Garza, with a return piece slotting immediately into the rotation. Looking into Oakland and Atlanta, to acquire pitching from them, attempting to use young position players to acquire them. Maybe try and buy low on Logan Morrison.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not opposed to adding major league talent, but I like tge one or two year contract, stopgap approach for one more season. That said, if we DO go looking for major league talent, my favorite scenario by far includes trading Garza, with a return piece slotting immediately into the rotation. Looking into Oakland and Atlanta, to acquire pitching from them, attempting to use young position players to acquire them. Maybe try and buy low on Logan Morrison.

 

That's not adding, that's swapping out. I'd rather keep Garza and maybe try to swing something for Anderson. If the Marlins are even willing to move Morrison at all, though, we need to be in on that.

 

And nothing but 1-2 year stopgaps don't really have the effect I'm looking for. 1-2 year stopgaps without realistic long term potential (like Liriano has, for instance) are either just trade filler when we're awful again next year or they're pointless additions with respectability as the only goal. The former can be done by still adding mid-long term ML assets and the latter isn't an optimal plan.

[davell]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

[Have a seat, Neifi]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

72, tops.

[davell]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

72, tops.

my honest guess is 72 is probably close. But that's not the top end. If Youkilis and Liriano stay healthy, that team(with a bullpen arm or two added) could do much better than that. At any rate, that team probably comes in around 90 mill or so, adds some longterm pieces and gives you plenty of room moving forward to add a young middle of the order hitter and a TOR starter that's much better than a Garza, when one comes available.

[El Duderino]

Was just thinking last night, I hope to all hell they do SOMETHING with Garza over the winter. Trade or extension. My balls can't get any bluer here.

[Guest]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

 

Obviously expectations are tricky when you intentionally get guys like Anderson, Morrison, and Liriano with the expectation of some type of bounce back, but back of the envelope I get about 78 wins assuming an average bench and bullpen(which might be too much to assume).

[davell]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

 

Obviously expectations are tricky when you intentionally get guys like Anderson, Morrison, and Liriano with the expectation of some type of bounce back, but back of the envelope I get about 78 wins assuming an average bench and bullpen(which might be too much to assume).

is that an acceptable team for you heading into next year?

[rawaction]

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

 

Obviously expectations are tricky when you intentionally get guys like Anderson, Morrison, and Liriano with the expectation of some type of bounce back, but back of the envelope I get about 78 wins assuming an average bench and bullpen(which might be too much to assume).

is that an acceptable team for you heading into next year?

 

Not addressed to me, but I think this would be very acceptable and somewhat what I expect. It is a move in the right direction. That would be 2 potential long-term fixtures in the rotation, with presumably 1-2 more coming in the Garza trade with Hutchinson. And it would add short-term help with Youk and Liriano, with a lottery ticket type in Morrison, who would be a low risk, high reward potential pickup. Would make the team better, while A) getting a couple of long-term assets, B) not blocking any potential long-term solutions, and C) leaving a lot of money to fill spots in the future when opportunities to really make a playoff run is possible.