Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davell]

Not that I thought he was a realistic option to begin with, but the Rizzo trade pretty much eliminates Jesus Montero from any possible discussions we have with the Yanks.

[toonsterwu]

Sure, Montero's probably out (although I still subscribe to the belief that you go after the best talent possible, so if they wanted to land him and figure things out later, I'm fine with that) but after reading Dave Cameron's valuation article on Garza, and thinking about how teams are all using advanced metrics these days, I wonder if a Banuelos/Betances/Sanchez type deal might be the best we can get. I still have my doubts the Yankees move both B's, though.

[davell]

I'd jump all over it, if it was offered. Personally, if the Yanks offered Betances/Sanchez/Williams, I'd still do it. And I'm not even a fan of Betances. I'd take Turner/Smyly/Crosby over the Yanks offer I just made up though and probably 10 different scenarios with the Jays over either Detroit or New York. If this thing goes into February though, Boston could make things very interesting with Barnes and/or Owens as PTBNL's, along with a Middlebrooks, Kalish, Ranaudo, or Lavarnway type deal. But, I hope the Rizzo trade puts trading Garza into "get it done now" mode. Blue Jays, Tigers, Yanks, and Red Sox in that order is my preference.

[toonsterwu]

There's 10 different scenarios you can come up with with the Jays, on 3 man packages, that tops Turner/Smyly/Crosby?

[davell]

I'm higher on their guys than any of these other teams, but just about any grouping of Marisnick or Gose with 2 of Syndergaard, Nicolino, Hutchison, and McGuire would do it for me. But I'm a big believer in Syndergaard and Nicolino, in particular.

[toonsterwu]

really? You'd pass up 3 high upside upper level arms for a package around 3 low level guys where, particularly on the arms, their upsides aren't necessarily bigger than the Det guys? I mean, I've followed Nicoliino for a long time now (as he was slated to go to UVA), and I like him a ton, but hard for me to see his upside as being significantly higher than Smyly's, if at all.

 

Edit: this isn't meant to criticize, btw. Just surprising that you'd feel that way, particularly in this day and age where upper level arms with upside are well-protected and arguably overvalued.

 

I also don't think Detroit will even remotely ponder giving us 3 of those arms (and I'm not sure they'd give us 2 of those two ... ).

[davell]

I guess I look at Syndergaard as the single biggest upside guy out of the group. Followed by Turner, then Nicolino with a slight advantage over Smyly and Crosby. If not for injury issues, I'd have Crosby higher though admittedly. The key though for me in this case is I'd value either of Gose or Marisnick moreso than the series of lefties. To the point where I'd take one of them and Syndergaard with anyone else I listed. On a different, but related note, a development that hasn't gotten mentioned yet today is Porcello opted out of his contract to become arb eligible. He'll probably make between 3 and 4 mill now, possibly making it easier to deal for him in a Garza package.

[A New Era]

Given Rizzo, it's gotta be either Turner + atleast 1 high upside headliner, or just Extend Garza to a 4-5 year contract starting 2012. Ofcourse if they could get a great haul elsewhere I suppose they could spin some stuff for some pitching later. But once we trade Garza we are in dire need of a top of rotation guy. I'd rather just get they guy right away as a part for Garza.

[davell]

Does anyone else think if we're going to deal Garza, it'll be before we have to exchange arb numbers? I would think any team trading for him would want to have their own sayso in what they start the negotiations from.

[illiniguy]

really? You'd pass up 3 high upside upper level arms for a package around 3 low level guys where, particularly on the arms, their upsides aren't necessarily bigger than the Det guys? I mean, I've followed Nicoliino for a long time now (as he was slated to go to UVA), and I like him a ton, but hard for me to see his upside as being significantly higher than Smyly's, if at all.

 

Edit: this isn't meant to criticize, btw. Just surprising that you'd feel that way, particularly in this day and age where upper level arms with upside are well-protected and arguably overvalued.

 

I also don't think Detroit will even remotely ponder giving us 3 of those arms (and I'm not sure they'd give us 2 of those two ... ).

Ten deals with Lawrie in them I guess.

[davell]

Levine said today on Talkin' Baseball that he now expects Garza to be a Cub on opening day. I guess it makes sense, if we can't get what we're looking for in return. Personally, I think if he gets dealt, it'll be this week, since arb numbers are due after that.

[Brian]

I'm guessing that the Cubs didn't get the blow them away package they were hoping for so they are going to wait and see. Garza should end up the number one target between opening day and July 31 for teams that need another starter for whatever reason. Then after July 31 if he's still on the Cubs they should have a good grasp on the state of the organization so it's either extension time or top bidder in the offseason.

 

Of course the way things have gone he could be traded or extended tomorrow and I wouldn't be shocked.

[toonsterwu]

There's risk to keeping him for a variety of reasons that have been discussed elsewhere, but here's what's crossing my mind right now.

 

For all the talk they have, along with Ricketts, about rebuilding/building step by step, and that there's process (or words to that effect), what is their timeline? Obviously, that's something they won't share with us, but I'm sure, being the smart guys that they are, they've somewhat mapped out an idea of what they hope to achieve and what direction. A roadmap of sorts, not something rigid.

 

I mean, it seems clear they are trying to repeat, to a certain extent, what they did in that first year in Boston (when Theo took the actual reins), trying to find some under-valued/under-appreciated pieces to and, for lack of a better term, fit the puzzle together. Back then, they had a core of top talent in place already, so they made a push right away, but 2012, barring some absolutely fluky development, is pretty much building/rebuilding. Do they think they can, perhaps, make a legitimate WS push by 2014? If so, then signing Garza down to 3-5 years makes, having an anchor in the rotation, and being able to sell FA's on Garza as a part of the core. He'd still be in his prime when the window would open.

 

If they believe that the system is that weak, and that a legitimate WS window might not open until, say, 2015, then maybe you figure differently. 1 year doesn't sound like much, but it's hard to say, this is the start of our window, and on paper, so far ahead of time, expect to win that year. Add in that any extension would be near it's end when that window opened, and you'd almost be better off trying to get whatever assets possible for him before the season, and avoid the risk in-season, while also allowing you to perhaps plan accordingly with said talent base in place in the minors.

 

Or maybe I'm running on fumes and coming up with smoke.

[UMFan83]

I honestly don't think that it will take that long to compete. It might take until 2015 until we are the high oiled machine that we hope to be, but in the meantime, we will get better and eventually will supplement what risks don't work out by a few big FA signings next offseason and the season after. When that happens we'll be in a position to compete as early as 2014.

 

I guess reasonable goals might be: 2012: none, 2013: .500, 2014: competing for playoff spot, 2015: world series contender.

[toonsterwu]

Sure, I expect us to be competitive sooner than later (and I could see us hang around .500 for part of the year, depending on how the SP goes), but my point, or at least, what I think my point is, is that resigning Garza should probably be a decision made in conjunction with whatever expectations they have on a timeline. If the legitimate window opens too far down the line (and that's for them to determine), then perhaps it would be smarter to take the young assets now, whatever it is, and build up from there.

 

Much as I want a bang-up Garza deal, if their expectations on when this machine will be in place are too far down the road, I'd rather take a quantity of solid quality, even if it's chips that are farther away, and build from there. After all, I think many of us are expecting that, if they struggle, that some more veterans, like a Dempster or a Soto, will be dealt mid-season if they are performing well enough to attract assets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that signing Garza only makes enough sense if they believe they can open that window sooner than later. Doesn't mean you deal him now, I guess, as you could wait mid-season, but there is a level of risk on waiting until mid-season.

[Guest]

Sure, I expect us to be competitive sooner than later (and I could see us hang around .500 for part of the year, depending on how the SP goes), but my point, or at least, what I think my point is, is that resigning Garza should probably be a decision made in conjunction with whatever expectations they have on a timeline. If the legitimate window opens too far down the line (and that's for them to determine), then perhaps it would be smarter to take the young assets now, whatever it is, and build up from there.

 

Much as I want a bang-up Garza deal, if their expectations on when this machine will be in place are too far down the road, I'd rather take a quantity of solid quality, even if it's chips that are farther away, and build from there. After all, I think many of us are expecting that, if they struggle, that some more veterans, like a Dempster or a Soto, will be dealt mid-season if they are performing well enough to attract assets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that signing Garza only makes enough sense if they believe they can open that window sooner than later. Doesn't mean you deal him now, I guess, as you could wait mid-season, but there is a level of risk on waiting until mid-season.

 

There is the same level of risk for the teams not trying to trade for him now. If Garza is solid, which he most likely will be, someone else could step up at the deadline to fill an injury vacancy in order to stay in the playoff race. Theo has no reason to jump the gun on moving Garza. He has tremendous value if they extend him and he should return tremendous value if someone steps up with an acceptable offer.

[davell]

Total speculation, but I saw on PSD someone said the Rangers have offered Darvish 6/45 while he supposedly wants 5/100. If this is true(big if) then if they miss out on him, they'd immediately become players on Garza again. I think the rumor was they offered Tampa more than we did for him originally, but they wanted him out of the AL. Maybe we're waiting to see how all that goes, before we decide for sure what to do with him? I think January 17th is the date for Darvish, but I could be wrong.

[TruffleShuffle]

shouldn't interested teams have had a conversation with him about what kind of salary he expected? 5/100 would make the average annual value over $30m after the posting fee, which is absurd. i wouldn't even have gone $20m/year with the posting fee factored in.

[davell]

I guess all that's up to his agent though. Maybe he didn't want to say much, because Yu is happy over there? The rumor was either a) he wanted the highest posting fee ever or b) he didn't care about the posting fee as long as he got what he wanted. If it's b) then Texas is basically going to be over 30 mill per for the guy, if he actually wants 100 mill. He's a rockstar over there, so who knows? Maybe he wants to play in a different market? No clue, but I hope this rumor IS true, because I can't see Texas going that high for him.

[SouthSideRyan]

Boston and DiceK were worlds apart at first too.

[TruffleShuffle]

i don't know why a player would want the highest posting fee ever, since he gets $0 from that. i suppose a very high posting fee (like dice-k high) gives the player a minimum contract to shoot for (what dice-k got from the sox).

[toonsterwu]

Sure, I expect us to be competitive sooner than later (and I could see us hang around .500 for part of the year, depending on how the SP goes), but my point, or at least, what I think my point is, is that resigning Garza should probably be a decision made in conjunction with whatever expectations they have on a timeline. If the legitimate window opens too far down the line (and that's for them to determine), then perhaps it would be smarter to take the young assets now, whatever it is, and build up from there.

 

Much as I want a bang-up Garza deal, if their expectations on when this machine will be in place are too far down the road, I'd rather take a quantity of solid quality, even if it's chips that are farther away, and build from there. After all, I think many of us are expecting that, if they struggle, that some more veterans, like a Dempster or a Soto, will be dealt mid-season if they are performing well enough to attract assets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that signing Garza only makes enough sense if they believe they can open that window sooner than later. Doesn't mean you deal him now, I guess, as you could wait mid-season, but there is a level of risk on waiting until mid-season.

 

There is the same level of risk for the teams not trying to trade for him now. If Garza is solid, which he most likely will be, someone else could step up at the deadline to fill an injury vacancy in order to stay in the playoff race. Theo has no reason to jump the gun on moving Garza. He has tremendous value if they extend him and he should return tremendous value if someone steps up with an acceptable offer.

 

Sure, there's some risk. But a solid Garza is actually a downgrade. We're selling elite Garza right now, coming off a dominant season, a guy a team can control for 2 years (albeit expensive). Solid Garza, 2008-2010 Garza, isn't nearly as enticing, and with a half year less, should get significantly less.

 

As you can probably tell from my comments, I'm leaning towards move Garza for a package pre-season, but I feel like the decision to be made is either to move Garza now or to sign him down now. I guess there's an argument that you sign him down now and try and ponder dealing him, but for some teams, taking on multiple years of a contract isn't that appealing, depending on the situation.

[Irrelevant Dude]

shouldn't interested teams have had a conversation with him about what kind of salary he expected? 5/100 would make the average annual value over $30m after the posting fee, which is absurd. i wouldn't even have gone $20m/year with the posting fee factored in.

What is to stop a team from posting a ridiculously high amount just to prevent the player from going to another team, then low-balling the offer because they never intended to spend that much on the player in the first place?

[javy knows my name]

I wonder if teams might be wary of dealing with Theo for pitching for the same reason they might (rightfully) be wary of dealing with Beane. Theo has publicly stated, for what it's worth, that he feels maintaining pitcher health is the new market inefficiency. He supported this by going after Maddux, a guy who helped usher in a new training regimen for pitchers and personally converted a short reliever to an elite starter in two years. Yet, it is doubtful that Maddux has the SABR inclinations that we thought would be a prerequisite in Theo's search, again suggesting a re-focus on pitching above all.

 

And I realize that Beane just got a king's ransom for Gio, but Gio doesn't have Garza's financial RoR. Anyone dealing for Garza would need to be prepared to extend him right away. He's got a couple more years on Gio, thus more mileage on his arm and will get expensive quite quickly. And by all accounts, Theo is asking for as much or more for him (and yet almost seems insistent on moving him). Maybe all those extra breaking balls have him/other teams worried.

[biittner77]

shouldn't interested teams have had a conversation with him about what kind of salary he expected? 5/100 would make the average annual value over $30m after the posting fee, which is absurd. i wouldn't even have gone $20m/year with the posting fee factored in.

What is to stop a team from posting a ridiculously high amount just to prevent the player from going to another team, then low-balling the offer because they never intended to spend that much on the player in the first place?

 

They have to pay the posting fee whether they sign him or not. What team would pay $50 million to block another team from getting that player?