Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guest]

Yankees have kicked the tires on Garza according to Sherman.

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/boston_bobby_WJRjpnvIVMMrLlzOukvv1N/1

 

The Yankees looked into Matt Garza, but a Cubs official said, “it is very, very unlikely” that the righty will be traded.

 

 

[bukie]

Somewhere else I made a list of 5 WAR players under 30. Garza was one of them. I'd probably be willing to trade him for another one of them, except the Cubs biggest need is pitchers. So I'd trade Garza for a younger, better pitcher.

[davell]

I saw a quote from Cashman somewhere that basically said he's looking forward to finally being able to work trades with Theo. As has been mentioned in this thread, for me it'd take one of their elite young catchers and one of their elite young arms. If they offered us Sanchez and Banuelos for Garza, I think I'd pull the trigger. Of course, in the process, if you trade Garza right now, I don't see how it's really going to be feasible to "go for it" this year either. So you may wind up taking a mulligan on 2012, which doesn't really seem like it's something the Cubs want to do.

[davearm2]

I saw a quote from Cashman somewhere that basically said he's looking forward to finally being able to work trades with Theo. As has been mentioned in this thread, for me it'd take one of their elite young catchers and one of their elite young arms. If they offered us Sanchez and Banuelos for Garza, I think I'd pull the trigger. Of course, in the process, if you trade Garza right now, I don't see how it's really going to be feasible to "go for it" this year either. So you may wind up taking a mulligan on 2012, which doesn't really seem like it's something the Cubs want to do.

If you could get Montero and one of their young arms, and then flip Soto for more young talent, I'd say that'd be about what it would take for me to let go of Garza.

[davell]

Hasn't it basically been decided though that Montero has to move off the plate though? Are you saying that expecting him to catch or are you willing to go with a stopgap or Castillo?

[CyHawk_Cub]

Hasn't it basically been decided though that Montero has to move off the plate though? Are you saying that expecting him to catch or are you willing to go with a stopgap or Castillo?

 

There's a need at 3b, does Montero make sense there? Like many others I'm not too keen on moving Garza, but getting Montero + from the Yankees would make me pull the trigger, 2012 be damned, & that wouldn't even be a given. Depending upon corresponding moves, the division can still be had. Yeah, I'm one of those who thinks it's possible to re-build AND compete at the big league level at the same time

[davell]

I'm pretty sure Montero is looked at as a DH or 1B at this point. Maybe he'd be OK as a corner OFer, but I don't think he's ever been tried out there.

[Guest]

Hasn't it basically been decided though that Montero has to move off the plate though? Are you saying that expecting him to catch or are you willing to go with a stopgap or Castillo?

 

There's a need at 3b, does Montero make sense there? Like many others I'm not too keen on moving Garza, but getting Montero + from the Yankees would make me pull the trigger, 2012 be damned, & that wouldn't even be a given. Depending upon corresponding moves, the division can still be had. Yeah, I'm one of those who thinks it's possible to re-build AND compete at the big league level at the same time

 

Montero is strictly a 1B/DH.

[A New Era]

It is an interesting situation if you ask about it. Right NOW, his value is at the highest. However we are 2-3 years from fielding a really strong team. So in a way each of the next couple years his value is somewhat wasted.

 

But I want him around when we finally do have a really strong team. What I would do is offer him an extension through 2017 or something. Show him you want him to be a part of the team long term, and maybe you can get a good team friendly deal. Don't wait til he can become a free agent. Either show him now you want him long term, or trade him for a king's ransom.

[Guest]

It is an interesting situation if you ask about it. Right NOW, his value is at the highest. However we are 2-3 years from fielding a really strong team. So in a way each of the next couple years his value is somewhat wasted.

 

But I want him around when we finally do have a really strong team. What I would do is offer him an extension through 2017 or something. Show him you want him to be a part of the team long term, and maybe you can get a good team friendly deal. Don't wait til he can become a free agent. Either show him now you want him long term, or trade him for a king's ransom.

 

We are nowhere near 3 years away from fielding a strong team. Do you realize how much money is freed up this offseason and next?

 

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

[A New Era]

It is an interesting situation if you ask about it. Right NOW, his value is at the highest. However we are 2-3 years from fielding a really strong team. So in a way each of the next couple years his value is somewhat wasted.

 

But I want him around when we finally do have a really strong team. What I would do is offer him an extension through 2017 or something. Show him you want him to be a part of the team long term, and maybe you can get a good team friendly deal. Don't wait til he can become a free agent. Either show him now you want him long term, or trade him for a king's ransom.

 

We are nowhere near 3 years away from fielding a strong team. Do you realize how much money is freed up this offseason and next?

 

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

 

My opinion on this often gets misunderstood by people here. So let me elaborate. Signing some big names like Fielder who have flaws (defense, weight), makes you better and = a competitive team. Going the next few years adding just the right pieces, maybe having 2-3 more young guys make it to the big leagues who are ready to contribute in a big way = a "strong team". A strong team is more my "ideal team". One which has guys like Garza, Castro, Jackson, and a handful of other guys in their mid-late 20's who have more upside than they do downside. And it's gonna take a couple years to build that ideal team.

[A New Era]

And let me say, I want Garza here long term. I like his enthusiasm, but most importantly, I love his potential. The only way I would ever want him traded is if you get an offer from a desperate team where you are getting back 3 times Garza's value in sure fire talent. Because that makes your team even stronger later than it does simply making it competitive next year.

[davearm2]

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

That's for sure. The Cubs are a crapload of young talent short of being the Rays.

 

I'd trade our money for their roster in a nanosecond.

 

Hopefully in a few years we will have both the money and the young talent.

[davearm2]

It is an interesting situation if you ask about it. Right NOW, his value is at the highest. However we are 2-3 years from fielding a really strong team. So in a way each of the next couple years his value is somewhat wasted.

 

But I want him around when we finally do have a really strong team. What I would do is offer him an extension through 2017 or something. Show him you want him to be a part of the team long term, and maybe you can get a good team friendly deal. Don't wait til he can become a free agent. Either show him now you want him long term, or trade him for a king's ransom.

 

We are nowhere near 3 years away from fielding a strong team. Do you realize how much money is freed up this offseason and next?

 

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

 

My opinion on this often gets misunderstood by people here. So let me elaborate. Signing some big names like Fielder who have flaws (defense, weight), makes you better and = a competitive team. Going the next few years adding just the right pieces, maybe having 2-3 more young guys make it to the big leagues who are ready to contribute in a big way = a "strong team". A strong team is more my "ideal team". One which has guys like Garza, Castro, Jackson, and a handful of other guys in their mid-late 20's who have more upside than they do downside. And it's gonna take a couple years to build that ideal team.

Well said. You can construct a realistic scenario where the Cubs make a big jump up the standings right away, with one or two key signings, plenty of good fortune, and a healthy dose of regression from teams like the Cards and Brewers.

 

But they aren't going to be a legitimately strong team for a few years.

 

If things fall into place this year, fantastic. But the overriding goal has to be to build that perennial powerhouse, and there are no shortcuts out there. That's why I'm not opposed to taking a step back to take two steps forward down the road -- that means entertaining trades for guys like Soto Marmol Marshall and possibly even Garza. (How pathetically short that list is kinda reinforces the point.)

[Guest]

There is no reason whatsoever that it should take until beyond 2013 to field a team that would be easily the favorite in the division. We get to put together a high payroll roster almost from scratch. I understand that it's not easy for some people to wrap their heads around that because it's not a situation that comes up that often (a bad high payroll team with a bunch of contracts expiring that you want to expire).

 

If not 2012, 2013 can easily see serious contention.

[Guest]

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

That's for sure. The Cubs are a crapload of young talent short of being the Rays.

 

I'd trade our money for their roster in a nanosecond.

 

Hopefully in a few years we will have both the money and the young talent.

 

 

Talk about a pointless post having nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[Brian]

The only way I trade Garza is if they get a blow away offer better than what we gave up.

[A New Era]

We're a big market team. We're not the [expletive] Rays.

That's for sure. The Cubs are a crapload of young talent short of being the Rays.

 

I'd trade our money for their roster in a nanosecond.

 

Hopefully in a few years we will have both the money and the young talent.

 

 

Talk about a pointless post having nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

Ofcourse not. But you seem to be failing to understand our side of the arguement on this. I want to be the Rays + large payroll. The way you do that is be willing to let guys go at the height of their value, if you are getting even more value in return. Having said that, once we have improved our number of trading chips. We use those chips in a different way, because we will have multiple options at each position. But for THIS year. I am entertaining strengthening our "assets" by giving up a player that helps us immediately if those assets are much stronger than what we give up. Because we are going to be in a more ideal situation in a few years time. You seem to want the quick fix, sign some big market guys, continue to spend big money on international free signings. Yes that would work. But being willing to look a 2-3 years down the road, helps us to more quickly to become "The Rays + large payroll" sooner.

[Sammy Sofa]

You seem to want the quick fix

 

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument."

[A New Era]

You seem to want the quick fix

 

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument."

 

Because I am more focused on the long term moves that make us stronger in 2014 and beyond as opposed to more competitive in 2012, and still stronger in 2013-2014. But maybe not as strong in 2012, with a bit more long term focus in mind.

[Sammy Sofa]

You seem to want the quick fix

 

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument."

 

Because I am more focused on the long term moves that make us stronger in 2014 and beyond as opposed to more competitive in 2012, and still stronger in 2013-2014. But maybe not as strong in 2012, with a bit more long term focus in mind.

 

This makes no sense; they don't have to pick one or the other. Trying to compete in 2012 doesn't negate being able to spend, trade or develop players for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and so on and so on and so on.

[XZero771679666304]

This "you can either spend in FA or focus on player development" garbage going around is some seriously stupid [expletive]. Does no one see what Theo did in Boston? That's right, both. It's what the Yankees do. It's what the Phillies have done. It's what the really good teams do.

 

If what people are hoping the Cubs can become are a team like the Rays, they're morons. Not that the Rays are bad, but the Cubs have resources the Rays can only dream of. The Rays are a great example of a well run small market team. The Cubs are a large market team with a ton of assets. Would the Rays operate the way they do if they had a $130MM payroll? Not a chance in hell.

 

And the notion that Theo and Co. should wait for the perfect moment when the system is turning out the right players to pounce on the perfect complementary FA players who may or may not be available is patently stupid. That's the sort of approach that'll have you sitting around with your thumb up your butt and accomplishing very little.

[Little Slide Rooter]

You seem to want the quick fix

 

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument."

 

Because I am more focused on the long term moves that make us stronger in 2014 and beyond as opposed to more competitive in 2012, and still stronger in 2013-2014. But maybe not as strong in 2012, with a bit more long term focus in mind.

 

This makes no sense; they don't have to pick one or the other. Trying to compete in 2012 doesn't negate being able to spend, trade or develop players for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and so on and so on and so on.

 

This is true but it comes down to the plans. They definitely have the resources to put together a winning team in the next 2-3 years, maybe even next year but if they simply don't plan on spending the money it would take to do so it simply won't happen by then so they may as well try to get a monster prospect package for Garza.

[davearm2]

You seem to want the quick fix

 

How the [expletive] are you coming to that conclusion? Just because he wisely doesn't want the Cubs to hold off spending until they start developing better players internally like davearm2 wants them to do doesn't mean he only wants the quick fix. Everyone with a functioning brain wants them to improve the farm system AND utilize their tremendous financial resources, so I have no idea why you're acting like that's only "your side of the argument."

 

Because I am more focused on the long term moves that make us stronger in 2014 and beyond as opposed to more competitive in 2012, and still stronger in 2013-2014. But maybe not as strong in 2012, with a bit more long term focus in mind.

 

This makes no sense; they don't have to pick one or the other. Trying to compete in 2012 doesn't negate being able to spend, trade or develop players for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and so on and so on and so on.

Would you be open to trading Marmol for an excellent package of prospects that are expected to be ML-ready in 2013?

 

How about Marshall?

 

Or Soto (assuming it is fronted by a catching prospect)?

 

Trying to compete in 2012 and building for the long term can indeed be mutually exclusive options.

 

I answer yes to all of those. How about you?

[Guest]

That is one hilarious false dichotomy.