Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm a bit surprised that the Rangers are completely out of the talks. We still don't know if Darvish replacing Wilson will be an upgrade, downgrade, or lateral. Hollands a nice 2 guy but I'm not completely sold on Lewis or Ogando and its certainly no sure thing that Feliz will take to te staring role, at least this quickly. Another front end starter shouldn't be out of te question for them.

[Rob]

Yeah, but if they traded for Garza and signed Fielder, all of the sudden it's time to start taking them seriously.

 

They won 81 games last year. Only Bautista and Romero are serious candidates for regression. They've replaced Aaron Hill and Rajai Davis with Kelly Johnson and Colby Rasmus (struggles aside, he's a good bet to outperform the Jays 2011 CF production). They will get a full season from Brett Lawrie. They've also got plenty of candidates to perform much better... Arencibia, Snider, Morrow, Cecil... and I'd love to see what Dustin McGowan could do if he's healthy going into next season.

 

I understand waiting a year or two, but with the money the Blue Jays have available I see no reason they couldn't contend next year if they wanted to.

[Gilby]

I wonder if the Jays aren't planning on lying low for a few seasons until Votto (Canadian star) becomes a FA and then spend like crazy that offseason. Though they already have the best hitter in baseball, and that plan would seem to be a bit of a waste of him.

[davell]

One of those MLBInsider guys on Twitter(no idea if he actually has contacts) said the Marlins have complicated matters in trading Garza. With our need for pitching and the fact they have none, makes me wonder if they're offering Jose Fernandez as part of their package? If so and we want to accept their offer, what's the deal? Guys drafted last year can't even be named as a PTBNL until sometime in February, right? And then can't officially be acquired until June? Am I correct on this? If so, this definitely complicates things, because we can't consummate a deal with them, other teams can move on, then Miami can still back out as well.

[toonsterwu]

Eh, I hope we pass on Jose Fernandez, even as a PTBNL. Never was that big a fan of the pre-draft reports. I have a hard time seeing them accept him in a deal and waiting that long to get their hands on him to indoctrinate him in their ways.

[El Duderino]

the marlins can take a hike. i hate them and their stupid new logo so we shouldn't deal with them.

 

unless they give us stanton

[CUBZ99]

Has Garza indicated to the Cubs that he will not sign a 4/5 year deal similar to Danks? I'm still conflicted about the rationale for trading Garza, especially in light of the new CBA. Everybody is complaining about the CBA making the playing field level for the draft, but doesn't that just increase the advantage of the teams that have large payrolls? It is not like the Cubs are strapped with a bunch of bad contracts or will be held hostage by them after this year. The problem I see with trading him is that he is still young enough where he could be an integral part of the rebuilding process. As evidenced by this offseason, elite starters can be very difficult to obtain.

[El Duderino]

i'd be fine signing him to an extension, but the huge increase in breaking balls last year and that brief dl stint because of his elbow is pretty scary

[XZero771679666304]

Has Garza indicated to the Cubs that he will not sign a 4/5 year deal similar to Danks? I'm still conflicted about the rationale for trading Garza, especially in light of the new CBA. Everybody is complaining about the CBA making the playing field level for the draft, but doesn't that just increase the advantage of the teams that have large payrolls? It is not like the Cubs are strapped with a bunch of bad contracts or will be held hostage by them after this year. The problem I see with trading him is that he is still young enough where he could be an integral part of the rebuilding process. As evidenced by this offseason, elite starters can be very difficult to obtain.

 

The rationale is trying to see if they can get a huge return on Garza as they retool. If they can't, they'll keep him. It's pretty sound logic.

[davell]

Toonster, I wasn't all that enamored with Fernandez either. He kind of sounds like a future closer to me. That said, if they offered Yelich/Fernandez/Ozuna/Realmuto, it's probably as good of a package as we'll get offered. My main issue is it'd keep us from making a deal with a different team, while still leaving them an option of going a different route themselves. I hope if it comes down to something like this, we'd take a slightly lesser package, just to insure we'd have a deal for sure. Not to mention, their package would still leave our pitching a mess.

[Abe Frohman]

The sausage king of chicago don't give a [expletive] about no sample sizes.

 

That was kinda the point, right?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Boras Seeks Five Years For Edwin Jackson

By Tim Dierkes [January 3 at 2:53pm CST]

TUESDAY, 2:53pm: Jackson seeks $15-17MM per year, writes Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Boras' promotional book on Jackson compares him to C.J. Wilson, Mark Buehrle, John Lackey, A.J. Burnett, and Derek Lowe. All of those pitchers received at least $14.5MM per year, averaging $15.6MM. Of course, Wilson and Buehrle just signed and the other three contracts were regrettable. The Yankees will continue dialogue with Jackson, writes Heyman. The process is starting to remind Joe Pawlikowski of River Ave. Blues of the Yankees' signing of Rafael Soriano last year.

 

 

It would appear as though Scott Boras wants teams in need of pitching to start flocking to Hoyer and Epstein with Garza inquiries.

[TruffleShuffle]

ok there are a lot of shocking contracts, but edwin jackson getting a burnett/lackey-type deal would possibly make me pass out from surprise. plus i would sure as hell like to see what stats he's using to compare him to lackey and burnett. those guys had twice as much career WAR as jackson when they signed their deals.

 

plus i'm not sure if it's a great bargaining tactic to say "hey these contracts that, in hindsight, are atrocious? my guy might merit that kind of salary!" but i'm sure what boras is doing is throwing out crazy numbers so that whatever he does end up getting - like 4/50 or whatever - seems quite reasonable in comparison.

[Outshined_One]

FanGraphs on Garza

 

I’m sure the Cubs would love to land multiple premium young talents in return for Garza, but given the fact that they’re only selling two years of service time and that Garza’s salaries are already climbing towards market rate prices, he’s simply not a valuable enough asset to demand that kind of return.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

FanGraphs on Garza

 

I’m sure the Cubs would love to land multiple premium young talents in return for Garza, but given the fact that they’re only selling two years of service time and that Garza’s salaries are already climbing towards market rate prices, he’s simply not a valuable enough asset to demand that kind of return.

 

They are right, but I don't want to hear it.

[TruffleShuffle]

FanGraphs on Garza

 

I’m sure the Cubs would love to land multiple premium young talents in return for Garza, but given the fact that they’re only selling two years of service time and that Garza’s salaries are already climbing towards market rate prices, he’s simply not a valuable enough asset to demand that kind of return.

 

i'm confident there are enough stupid GMs in baseball to get a good return for garza.

[Guest]

"Climbing toward market rate prices" in this case apparently means ~30 million in surplus value over two years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"Climbing toward market rate prices" in this case apparently means ~30 million in surplus value over two years.

 

Well, yeah.

 

$30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way.

[jersey cubs fan]

FanGraphs on Garza

 

I’m sure the Cubs would love to land multiple premium young talents in return for Garza, but given the fact that they’re only selling two years of service time and that Garza’s salaries are already climbing towards market rate prices, he’s simply not a valuable enough asset to demand that kind of return.

 

They are right, but I don't want to hear it.

 

that's my feeling

[Guest]

"Climbing toward market rate prices" in this case apparently means ~30 million in surplus value over two years.

 

Well, yeah.

 

$30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way.

 

It's not? Gio Gonzalez just got the proverbial truck of prospects backed up for him to provide what, 40 million in surplus value over 4 years? Mat Latos was largely the same as well, and both of those guys pitch in canyons that might mask their true ability a touch.

[KingCubsFan]

"Climbing toward market rate prices" in this case apparently means ~30 million in surplus value over two years.

 

Well, yeah.

 

$30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way.

 

It's not? Gio Gonzalez just got the proverbial truck of prospects backed up for him to provide what, 40 million in surplus value over 4 years? Mat Latos was largely the same as well, and both of those guys pitch in canyons that might mask their true ability a touch.

Both of them were younger and under team control for longer.

[Guest]

"Climbing toward market rate prices" in this case apparently means ~30 million in surplus value over two years.

 

Well, yeah.

 

$30 million in surplus value over two years isn't enough to get you multiple blue chip prospects, unless teams get really desperate for starting pitching. They might get that desperate eventually, but at the moment it doesn't seem that way.

 

It's not? Gio Gonzalez just got the proverbial truck of prospects backed up for him to provide what, 40 million in surplus value over 4 years? Mat Latos was largely the same as well, and both of those guys pitch in canyons that might mask their true ability a touch.

Both of them were younger and under team control for longer.

 

And also not as productive, that's why we're talking about the surplus value added over the duration of their team control.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Some people simply arent getting the scenerio here. We're not trying to dump the guy, we're trying to coax teams into overpaying. If someone bites and gives us more than the market has him valued at, then good for us. If not, we keep him and either put him back on the block for the same cost this summer or next winter or we just keep him and maybe extend him. There's no urgency to move him anytime soon.

[jersey cubs fan]

And also not as productive, that's why we're talking about the surplus value added over the duration of their team control.

 

Not everybody measures the value in the same way.

[Sammy Sofa]

Some people simply arent getting the scenerio here. We're not trying to dump the guy, we're trying to coax teams into overpaying. If someone bites and gives us more than the market has him valued at, then good for us. If not, we keep him and either put him back on the block for the same cost this summer or next winter or we just keep him and maybe extend him. There's no urgency to move him anytime soon.

 

Who are you even talking to?