Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

Once a player reaches the high minors and performs, I'm not really worried about how "unproven" he is. I've never been a big fan of the concept of "provenness." Players change, both in the bigs and in the minors. It's not like we know for sure that Garza has figured it out and won't be returning to the 1.6 WAR pitcher he was two years ago, either.

Or with his stuff, maybe he has an even better season or two in him coming up. "Proven" in baseball is very shaky ground, imo.

[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.

 

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

 

Because I'm a native speaker of English and I understand the words that I'm using. I'm beginning to wonder about you.

[CubColtPacer]

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?

 

Because I'm a native speaker of English and I understand the words that I'm using. I'm beginning to wonder about you.

 

It should be noted that while value and status as an asset should be interchangable in baseball, it sometimes isn't. And a star pitcher making big money is probably the most overrated thing in baseball. They shouldn't have that much trade value because of the risk of the big contract, but they frequently do. So if/when Garza signs an extension with the Cubs, his value will drop, but his status as an asset will probably not drop nearly as much.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

You're going to have to show me the "bunch of bad, untradeable contracts" the Cubs have, because I'm not aware of them. I guess Z and Dempster might count (though I don't think Dempster comes close to qualifying and Z probably doesn't' either), but they end after next year, leaving only the Soriano contract fitting that description. I keep seeing this assertion off and on with this board and in the media and I just don't have any idea what these awful contracts the Cubs have are.

 

What I see is a team with a couple of premiere young talents (Castro, Garza), a bad, highly overpaid player (Soriano), a bunch of decent to good veterans (Demp, Z, Soto, DeJesus, Wells, Marshall, Marmol) and some nice to very good young players (BJax, most of the bullpen, Cashner, Barney). With the right moves that's not a team that's numerous years away from being competitive for the playoffs and, thus, the World Series.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It should be noted that while value and status as an asset should be interchangable in baseball, it sometimes isn't. And a star pitcher making big money is probably the most overrated thing in baseball. They shouldn't have that much trade value because of the risk of the big contract, but they frequently do. So if/when Garza signs an extension with the Cubs, his value will drop, but his status as an asset will probably not drop nearly as much.

 

Okay, so maybe we are getting bogged down in confusion more than I realized.

 

It's context dependent.

 

Value can mean:

 

A) How good is Player at helping a team win baseball games?

 

B) How much can Player command in a transaction (contract or trade)?

 

C) How much does controlling Player at his current contract status contribute to the team's ultimate goals?

 

Under Definition A, Soriano has some value. Under definition B, Soriano has no value. Under definition C, Soriano has negative value.

 

Unless more posters come down with Jersey-itis, I'll assume that most people can pick out which meaning is being used based on the context of conversation.

 

It makes sense to trade Garza if you convince some team to make Garza's B larger than Garza's C. It'd have to be a ton, but in this fetid market for starting pitching and coming off a career year to date, I think you might be able to do it.

 

The longer we hold on to Garza, the more his B and C go down. We'll essentially be spending some of his B and C value on wins. Nothing wrong with that, of course, because wins are good.

[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

 

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.

 

I wouldn't say it was fun.

 

But we're back to setting up the world thru Kyle-colored glasses and being incredibly stubborn about it. Forcing your phrase of the day into every post about 6 times until folks want to punch their computer screen is a habit I was hoping wouldn't return. Garza is here for 2 years unless he's traded, extended, dies or whatever. Defining it as you like and being adamant that everyone agree with your definition is pointless.

 

Garza is also valuable bc he's a good pitcher. He may even be undervalued in the market bc he played with a crappy infield defense last year (who knows what sorts of offers Jebadore have received). His value is increased by his cost-controlled status but not entirely dependent upon it. He could easily be much more valuable as a trade piece at the deadline next year or after the season when he led the cubs to the WS.

[jersey cubs fan]

He's a short-term answer in your mind because he's only signed for 2 years. He's a valuable asset because he's relatively cheap and under team control for two years. If he signs an extension tomorrow that takes away any semblence of short-term but his relative value will decline since he'll have guaranteed money. Your circular logic is circular.

[CubColtPacer]

It should be noted that while value and status as an asset should be interchangable in baseball, it sometimes isn't. And a star pitcher making big money is probably the most overrated thing in baseball. They shouldn't have that much trade value because of the risk of the big contract, but they frequently do. So if/when Garza signs an extension with the Cubs, his value will drop, but his status as an asset will probably not drop nearly as much.

 

Okay, so maybe we are getting bogged down in confusion more than I realized.

 

It's context dependent.

 

Value can mean:

 

A) How good is Player at helping a team win baseball games?

 

B) How much can Player command in a transaction (contract or trade)?

 

C) How much does controlling Player at his current contract status contribute to the team's ultimate goals?

 

Under Definition A, Soriano has some value. Under definition B, Soriano has no value. Under definition C, Soriano has negative value.

 

Unless more posters come down with Jersey-itis, I'll assume that most people can pick out which meaning is being used based on the context of conversation.

 

It makes sense to trade Garza if you convince some team to make Garza's B larger than Garza's C. It'd have to be a ton, but in this fetid market for starting pitching and coming off a career year to date, I think you might be able to do it.

 

The longer we hold on to Garza, the more his B and C go down. We'll essentially be spending some of his B and C value on wins. Nothing wrong with that, of course, because wins are good.

 

What I'm saying is that when Garza signs an extension, his C goes down by quite a bit. But his B might not go down by that much. Salary just doesn't seem to be a big issue when discussing trades for star pitchers-the number of years under control does. So as long as the Cubs are willing to sign him to that extension, Garza can be viewed as a long-term asset (B), even though his value to the Cubs will be much less when he's making that big money ©.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

blah blah blah the stupid stuff we always argue about that i'll just snip rather than responding to point-by-point so we can get back to the baseball. Happy?

 

Garza is also valuable bc he's a good pitcher. He may even be undervalued in the market bc he played with a crappy infield defense last year (who knows what sorts of offers Jebadore have received).

 

He may also be overvalued because last year was the first time he was that good. His stuff and age make it good signs that his performance was legit, but you can't completely ignore that he was a sub-2 WAR pitcher two years ago.

 

His value is increased by his cost-controlled status but not entirely dependent upon it. He could easily be much more valuable as a trade piece at the deadline next year or after the season when he led the cubs to the WS.

 

I can't read the future minds of every MLB GM, but I'd be really surprised if you could get more at the next trade deadline or offseason than you could now.

 

Yes, if the Cubs find themselves in the playoffs next season, then Garza's immediate pitching would be worth a lot more to them than cashing in on his value in a trade. Conversely, if they find themselves 72-90, then Garza's pitching was basically wasted.

 

If we assume the former, then we keep Garza no matter what. If we assume the latter, then we dump him no matter what.

 

I think the odds of competing next year are good enough that keeping Garza is a very viable option, but the odds of being bad are also good enough that trading him is a viable option if the return is high enough.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What I'm saying is that when Garza signs an extension, his C goes down by quite a bit. But his B might not go down by that much. Salary just doesn't seem to be a big issue when discussing trades for star pitchers-the number of years under control does. So as long as the Cubs are willing to sign him to that extension, Garza can be viewed as a long-term asset (B), even though his value to the Cubs will be much less when he's making that big money ©.

 

Agreed! Hurry up and sign that extension, Hoystein.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's a short-term answer in your mind because he's only signed for 2 years. He's a valuable asset because he's relatively cheap and under team control for two years. If he signs an extension tomorrow that takes away any semblence of short-term but his relative value will decline since he'll have guaranteed money. Your circular logic is circular.

 

Depends on the terms, but assuming he signs a reasonable deal that tears up his next two arb years (5/70, beginning immediately?):

 

You've lowered his short-term value by raising his salary for 2012 and 2013 without raising his pitching ability.

 

You've increased his long-term value by signing him up for three additional seasons for which he'll likely be worth at least as much as his contract.

 

So a contract extension would turn a short-term asset into a long-term one. Until he signs such an extension, he's a short-term asset.

 

Honestly, this seems so self-evident that I'm confused as to what you are arguing about.

[rawaction]

 

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.

 

But I don't understand why a WS run can't be anticipated. This team is going to have the potential at least for a 130Mil payroll. You should never pay that much money for a team that isn't anticipated to push for the WS.

[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.

 

But I don't understand why a WS run can't be anticipated. This team is going to have the potential at least for a 130Mil payroll. You should never pay that much money for a team that isn't anticipated to push for the WS.

That's true in theory.

 

Unfortunately, most of that money's already spent, and the team's still just not that good. You said so yourself.

 

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

[Sammy Sofa]

Most of the money is not spent for 2013. They have a lot of money to spend this year. Building for a WS team can be a multi-tiered process that doesn't have to be accomplished in a single offseason. You get better for next year; then you get even better for the year after that.

 

If you keep trading away your best players and avoiding big FA signings because a shot at the WS seems a good 2-3 years away, well, it always going to remain at least 2-3 years away unless you somehow stumble across a miracle class of multiple in-house success stories that all hit the team at the same time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Unfortunately, most of that money's already spent, and the team's still just not that good. You said so yourself.

 

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

I think you are really underselling the state of the team.

 

Assuming $130 million is the payroll, we have at least $35 million left to spend. We have likely average production, at least, from C, SS, 2b and RF, and could easily get it from LF and CF too. We have at least three average starting pitchers and an above-average bullpen.

[davearm2]

Unfortunately, most of that money's already spent, and the team's still just not that good. You said so yourself.

 

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

I think you are really underselling the state of the team.

 

Assuming $130 million is the payroll, we have at least $35 million left to spend. We have likely average production, at least, from C, SS, 2b and RF, and could easily get it from LF and CF too. We have at least three average starting pitchers and an above-average bullpen.

Average at numerous spots isn't particularly inspiring.

[Guest]

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Average at numerous spots isn't particularly inspiring.

 

1) I said "at least average." A couple of those spots could be a lot better than average.

 

2) We still have at least $35 million to spend

 

3) Average teams can have slightly above-average seasons, and above-average teams win the WS sometimes.

 

4) Your level of "inspiration" isn't really the end-goal towards which Hoystein should be working.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins.

 

Cardinals. If we stretch to 2011, then Cardinals twice.

[Tracer Bullet]

Kyle, your surprise at a player's future value has no impact upon that value. You have no idea what we can get in 7 or 9 months. Dumping him "no matter what" if we aren't a playoff team next year makes no sense unless you think we can't contend in 2013 either and can't sign Garza to a reasonable extension.

[davearm2]

Average at numerous spots isn't particularly inspiring.

 

1) I said "at least average." A couple of those spots could be a lot better than average.

 

2) We still have at least $35 million to spend

 

3) Average teams can have slightly above-average seasons, and above-average teams win the WS sometimes.

 

4) Your level of "inspiration" isn't really the end-goal towards which Hoystein should be working.

You said at least average. I disagree. Just plain average fits for me.

 

If you think this team can contend for the WS, and I don't... that's OK.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dumping him "no matter what" if we aren't a playoff team next year makes no sense unless you think we can't contend in 2013 either and can't sign Garza to a reasonable extension.

 

I think that's really underestimating the value of what we might get for him in a trade and the ability of Hoystein to find a good replacement in two offseasons.

[rawaction]

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins.

 

Exactly. The rumors we've heard alone would probably be enough to allow this team to contend. There are a lot of available players out there. 1B has been well documented, even if you have to bring back Pena at 1B, it's conceivable that the Cubs could get Headley, a guy like Gio Gonzalez, a young SP from the Rays, there's players that will become available if you get rid of Soriano and later in FA (Beltran). The Cubs would still need a lot to go right to seriously contend, but there are plenty of pieces out there to make it closer to happening.

[MSG T]

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins.

 

Exactly. The rumors we've heard alone would probably be enough to allow this team to contend. There are a lot of available players out there. 1B has been well documented, even if you have to bring back Pena at 1B, it's conceivable that the Cubs could get Headley, a guy like Gio Gonzalez, a young SP from the Rays, there's players that will become available if you get rid of Soriano and later in FA (Beltran). The Cubs would still need a lot to go right to seriously contend, but there are plenty of pieces out there to make it closer to happening.

 

 

I think you're saying kind of the same thing I've said. They don't need to build a team that competes for the WS for 2012, they just need to get better. One or two bigger moves (say Fielder and Buehrle, possibly Darvish/Cespedes) and a few smaller ones (DeJesus, and say Headley) improves this team, to the point that they should, with neutral luck, finish slightly over .500. Another couple of bigger siginings next offseason, and a few small moves, and they should/could be back at the top of the Central by 2013. Looking at the number of teams that have made that kind of improvement, it's not that hard, you just need to have a rough plan in place and follow it.

[rawaction]

What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.

 

That's not true at all. Teams do it all the time. I can think of at least 3 teams that have won the World Series in the 00's that got by with less than what the Cubs could go out and get. The Diamondbacks, White Sox and Marlins.

 

Exactly. The rumors we've heard alone would probably be enough to allow this team to contend. There are a lot of available players out there. 1B has been well documented, even if you have to bring back Pena at 1B, it's conceivable that the Cubs could get Headley, a guy like Gio Gonzalez, a young SP from the Rays, there's players that will become available if you get rid of Soriano and later in FA (Beltran). The Cubs would still need a lot to go right to seriously contend, but there are plenty of pieces out there to make it closer to happening.

 

 

I think you're saying kind of the same thing I've said. They don't need to build a team that competes for the WS for 2012, they just need to get better. One or two bigger moves (say Fielder and Buehrle, possibly Darvish/Cespedes) and a few smaller ones (DeJesus, and say Headley) improves this team, to the point that they should, with neutral luck, finish slightly over .500. Another couple of bigger siginings next offseason, and a few small moves, and they should/could be back at the top of the Central by 2013. Looking at the number of teams that have made that kind of improvement, it's not that hard, you just need to have a rough plan in place and follow it.

 

Which side are you on though re: Garza? If you are on the "trade Garza side" then why would you pay money for Buerhle and get rid of a better pitcher? The gains you made on offense are already minimal because you have to replace Ramirez also, but then you also remain stagnant on a pitching staff that gets rid of its best pitcher (Garza) for a downgrade (Buerhle). That's a team that finishes slightly better than last year, but looks better doing.