Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guest]

to be fair, if we sign Pujols/Fielder + Wilson, we'll be down a second and a third round draft pick next year.

[MSG T]

to be fair, if we sign Pujols/Fielder + Wilson, we'll be down a second and a third round draft pick next year.

 

Yeah, I know. But, would anyone be missing them if we had Pujols/Fielder + CJ on the team 4 years from now? Well, anyone other than Dave?

 

Given how many prospects actually make it from the draft to the majors, I'm not sure it's much of a hit to the future.

[davearm2]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course.

 

I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future.

I've said right from the beginning that building for the future is more important to me. I've hardly kept that a secret.

 

Not sure why everyone else is so afraid to pick one side or the other.

 

A definite yes on Marshall, Marmol, and Byrd, presuming solid value is offered. Garza is more tricky since he could be a cornerstone for many years.

It's not that we are afraid to pick one side or the other. We feel it is unnecessary to choose. Not sure why you feel it is required.

It's necessary to choose the moment another team calls offering a package of prospects for one of these guys. You have to tell them yes or no.

[davearm2]

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success.

 

All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term?

 

Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely.

 

If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone.

 

Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases.

[Guest]

Dave,

 

It's really not necessary to choose if you're going for it in 2012 if someone calls and offers prospects for Marmol.

 

1) there are candidates internally that may actually do a better job

2) moving him frees up cash that can be spent to improve another area

3) there are other relievers on the market that could be acquired to fill the closer role.

4) there's a real chance his arm falls of in 2012 or his performance continues to decline anyway

 

Note #1: the third option represents one way to exercise large market muscles is to trade guys like marmol away to get prospects and then sign a free agent other teams can't afford. Not the route I'd go, but it's a possibility. Particularly if you're trading someone like Marshall away and want to sign another setup guy.

 

Note #2: You're also ignoring the fact that you could also shop the player around and try to get a deal that helps you at the major league level right now instead of taking prospects.

[Guest]

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success.

 

All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term?

 

Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely.

 

If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone.

 

Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases.

You think 99% of trades are (major league player) for (minor league players at least one year away)?

 

You don't think you're overstating that a smidge?

 

I'd guess if we went through a transaction record that quite a few major leaguer for major leaguer trades happen, not to mention major leaguer for mlb ready prospect trades.

[davearm2]

Dave,

 

It's really not necessary to choose if you're going for it in 2012 if someone calls and offers prospects for Marmol.

 

1) there are candidates internally that may actually do a better job

2) moving him frees up cash that can be spent to improve another area

3) there are other relievers on the market that could be acquired to fill the closer role.

4) there's a real chance his arm falls of in 2012 or his performance continues to decline anyway

 

Note #1: the third option represents one way to exercise large market muscles is to trade guys like marmol away to get prospects and then sign a free agent other teams can't afford. Not the route I'd go, but it's a possibility. Particularly if you're trading someone like Marshall away and want to sign another setup guy.

 

Note #2: You're also ignoring the fact that you could also shop the player around and try to get a deal that helps you at the major league level right now instead of taking prospects.

To me trading Marmol is pretty much a no-brainer, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

You can't really say these things about Soto or Marshall, and definitely not Garza. There's really no two ways about it -- you trade any of those three, and you're going to be worse in 2012... or you'll be paying more $$$ to get equal production on the FA market.

[XZero771679666304]

Dave,

 

It's really not necessary to choose if you're going for it in 2012 if someone calls and offers prospects for Marmol.

 

1) there are candidates internally that may actually do a better job

2) moving him frees up cash that can be spent to improve another area

3) there are other relievers on the market that could be acquired to fill the closer role.

4) there's a real chance his arm falls of in 2012 or his performance continues to decline anyway

 

Note #1: the third option represents one way to exercise large market muscles is to trade guys like marmol away to get prospects and then sign a free agent other teams can't afford. Not the route I'd go, but it's a possibility. Particularly if you're trading someone like Marshall away and want to sign another setup guy.

 

Note #2: You're also ignoring the fact that you could also shop the player around and try to get a deal that helps you at the major league level right now instead of taking prospects.

 

Wait, you guys are arguing about the short/long term ramifications of trading Marmol?

 

Trading Marmol is a no-brainer,imo. Trading him does little or nothing to hurt the team right now, as there are in-house candidates to replace him, because he was fairly bad at his job last year and because his arm may well be ready to fall off. Virtually anything we get for him will be a net gain.

 

Trading Marmol and trading a guy like Garza are completely different scenarios that need to be assessed differently. Just because you apply a line of thinking to the trade of one asset does not mean it has to be applied as the approach to all trades.

 

And yes, the notion that Theo and Jed are at the mercy of whoever calls and makes an offer is ridiculous. They can and likely would seek out a trade partner who matched up well.

[davearm2]

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success.

 

All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term?

 

Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely.

 

If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone.

 

Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases.

You think 99% of trades are (major league player) for (minor league players at least one year away)?

 

You don't think you're overstating that a smidge?

 

I'd guess if we went through a transaction record that quite a few major leaguer for major leaguer trades happen, not to mention major leaguer for mlb ready prospect trades.

No, 99% of trades involve sacrificing in one area to get better in another area.

 

It could be bolstering the minor league system in exchange for a useful major leaguer, like we're talking about here. It could be getting a starting pitcher for a 3B. It could be getting one superstar for 2 great players. Point being, there's a tradeoff.

 

This whole "let's make a trade that makes us better now and better in the future" sounds like getting something for nothing, and seems pointless to discuss.

[Guest]

To me trading Marmol is pretty much a no-brainer, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

You can't really say these things about Soto or Marshall, and definitely not Garza. There's really no two ways about it -- you trade any of those three, and you're going to be worse in 2012... or you'll be paying more $$$ to get equal production on the FA market.

 

 

That's why you can't boil this question down to generalities like you would like to. I wouldn't trade Garza in a trade that only helps for the future unless it was an absolutely mind blowing package of players. It's about how replaceable they are, what kind of assets they are now and are expected to be in the future, etc. Marshall maybe is replaceable and thus tradeable if you feel the package is good enough to warrant dealing him and taking some level of a hit in the short term (as good as he is, it's not like decent relievers are THAT hot of a commodity). Obviously, for that reason, though, it's not remotely likely anyone would offer that great of a package for him.

 

It is totally a case by case type of question.

[Sammy Sofa]

I really want to be in a fantasy baseball league with davearm2.

[Guest]

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success.

 

All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term?

 

Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

The free agents are a separate issue entirely.

 

If you're offered a trade that helps you now *and* in the future, then obviously you take it. Of course if you hold out for such a deal, then you probably won't ever trade anyone.

 

Where the rubber meets the road is when you're offered a trade that hurts you now but helps you in the future (or visa versa). That's like 99% of the cases.

You think 99% of trades are (major league player) for (minor league players at least one year away)?

 

You don't think you're overstating that a smidge?

 

I'd guess if we went through a transaction record that quite a few major leaguer for major leaguer trades happen, not to mention major leaguer for mlb ready prospect trades.

No, 99% of trades involve sacrificing in one area to get better in another area.

 

It could be bolstering the minor league system in exchange for a useful major leaguer, like we're talking about here. It could be getting a starting pitcher for a 3B. It could be getting one superstar for 2 great players. Point being, there's a tradeoff.

 

This whole "let's make a trade that makes us better now and better in the future" sounds like getting something for nothing, and seems pointless to discuss.

Of course there's a tradeoff in any trade - I don't see anyone arguing against that concept. You're the one suggesting that if we trade Marmol (though you've backed off this one), Marshall, Soto or Garza that we're automatically getting worse in 2012. You're the one suggesting that if we trade those guys it would necessarily be for prospects that are at least a year away.

 

However...

 

Marshall: Let's say the Yankees really want an experienced lefty reliever badly and were willing to trade us Montero to get him. We've got enough depth in the pen to cover Marshall's loss and we get better on offense with Montero. Not to mention having an extra $3M to spend on something.

 

Soto: Let's say that San Diego wanted him in a trade for Headley. Headley + Castillo may be better for us both in 2012 and in the future than Soto + Baker/DeWitt.

 

Garza: Hard to see a circumstance that improves the team in 2012 trading Garza, but let's say we decided to flex our big market muscle a bit and sign both Wilson and Darvish. Now we have a pitching market that is truly starved and Garza becomes easily the most attractive option out there. We could potentially net a young cornerstone for the offense in return for Matt who may even be major league ready in 2012. This one is a stretch as it depends on us signing both of the top FA pitchers. But I don't think we are at all likely to trade Garza, anyway.

[davearm2]

Of course there's a tradeoff in any trade - I don't see anyone arguing against that concept. You're the one suggesting that if we trade Marmol (though you've backed off this one), Marshall, Soto or Garza that we're automatically getting worse in 2012. You're the one suggesting that if we trade those guys it would necessarily be for prospects that are at least a year away.

 

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting any of these things are given.

 

I'm asking, if you're presented with a trade offer that *is* for prospects, and this is the most attractive offer available, and it *does* leave you worse off in 2012 instantaneously, without considering any other moves, but does make you better down the road, do you do it?

 

This is the only situation worthy of discussion. The other options that make you better now and better later are no-brainers.

Edited November 19, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe.

[Guest]

Of course there's a tradeoff in any trade - I don't see anyone arguing against that concept. You're the one suggesting that if we trade Marmol (though you've backed off this one), Marshall, Soto or Garza that we're automatically getting worse in 2012. You're the one suggesting that if we trade those guys it would necessarily be for prospects that are at least a year away.

 

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting any of these things are given.

 

I'm asking, if you're presented with a trade offer that *is* for prospects, and this is the most attractive offer available, and it *does* leave you worse off in 2012 instantaneously, without considering any other moves, but does make you better down the road, do you do it?

 

This is the only situation worthy of discussion. The other options that make you better now and better later are no-brainers.

 

 

The answer to that question is if the package is attractive enough that it's worth giving up that short term asset. Pretty simple. Then you figure out what to do to offset that short term hit. If the most attractive offer available isn't attractive enough to be worth doing this, you don't. If it is, you do. What is so complicated about this?

[davell]

I think it has everything to do with who it is that's getting dealt. If you're trading Garza, you'd better be getting a TON in return. To where you can "sell" it to your huge fanbase that most won't understand why you just moved your best pitcher for players they've never heard of. Because the fact is, it could hurt revenue if the fans don't see a product on the field worth going out to see. Especially with what we're charging for ticket prices at this point. If this can't be done with the return, then personally, I'm not doing it, because the risk of fan backlash means too much. Basically, in Garza's case, for what you're asking, I guess the return would conceivably have to be 2 top 25 prospects that have yet to see AA. The thing is though, I find it nearly impossible for one team to be able to make an offer like that, when there aren't any other offers remotely close that involve players close to the majors.

[buckeye27]

I don't really see why the cubs would consider dealing garza unless the package was flat out incredible. This past year, garza made 5.9m dollars. Garza in almost any estimation is a top of the line starter. He is ace type material.

 

In comparison, the pirates are "close" to a deal with Clint Barmes. 2 years, 11m.

 

Garza is a guy you can build a rotation around, and if the goal is to be competitive, trading off the best starter on the staff isn't the best idea. Unless there's something that im completely missing about him, he's a keeper. I'd love to have this guy on my team.

[Guest]

Of course there's a tradeoff in any trade - I don't see anyone arguing against that concept. You're the one suggesting that if we trade Marmol (though you've backed off this one), Marshall, Soto or Garza that we're automatically getting worse in 2012. You're the one suggesting that if we trade those guys it would necessarily be for prospects that are at least a year away.

 

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting any of these things are given.

 

I'm asking, if you're presented with a trade offer that *is* for prospects, and this is the most attractive offer available, and it *does* leave you worse off in 2012 instantaneously, without considering any other moves, but does make you better down the road, do you do it?

 

This is the only situation worthy of discussion. The other options that make you better now and better later are no-brainers.

It would take one heck of an offer to get me to punt on 2012. But the only three players that we would have a hard time replacing for the coming season would be Garza, Soto and Castro. We're not going to trade Castro, so you're basically asking if we'd trade Garza or Soto for prospects.

 

Let's take Garza first.

 

For me, I'd bet that if I spent an hour, I could come up with about ten prospect packages I'd be willing to move him for from various teams. I'd also be willing to wager that those teams wouldn't be willing to move those prospects for him at this time. I'd also be unlikely to come up with any more than ten packages of prospects (that would be at all realistic) that would be exciting enough to make me want to punt 2012.

 

Basically, I'd have to be blown away to make that kind of move for Garza.

 

Soto is a bit of a different story. I have concerns about the increase in his strikeout rate in 2011. It's true that he was unlucky last year, but he was also flat out worse than he was the years before that. Because of this increased risk, I'm more willing to consider a move than I have been in previous seasons.

 

Also, unlike with Garza, I don't believe that trading Soto would mean that we're punting on 2012. I think that we could make enough improvements elsewhere on the field that the loss of his production at catcher wouldn't be devastating to our chances. Also, while Castillo isn't likely to be as good as Geo, having him ready to plug in helps reduce the pain of trading Soto.

 

The flip side of that argument is that we already have his production and moving him means we'd have to find incrementally more to compete next season. We would also be trading the guy who now reigns as the most patient player on the team.

 

All things told, if we got an attractive enough package of prospects for Geo, I'd certainly consider the move even if it hurts us next year. I'd have to weigh how much it would hurt the team in the short term loss against he long term gain to determine if I'd make the move.

 

It's not a black and white answer, but the question itself is not an either/or situation.

[MSG T]

I don't really see why the cubs would consider dealing garza unless the package was flat out incredible. This past year, garza made 5.9m dollars. Garza in almost any estimation is a top of the line starter. He is ace type material.

 

In comparison, the pirates are "close" to a deal with Clint Barmes. 2 years, 11m.

 

Garza is a guy you can build a rotation around, and if the goal is to be competitive, trading off the best starter on the staff isn't the best idea. Unless there's something that im completely missing about him, he's a keeper. I'd love to have this guy on my team.

 

 

Yeah, but he's not going to be good in 2017, which is evidently when Dave wants the Cubs to shoot for being good again. So why keep him when you can trade him for the four best A+ players in someone's system.

 

 

- Yes, I'm intentionally exaggerating to show a nonsensical point.

[dew1679666265]

This idea of trading Garza, which seems to have a lot of traction on this board, is really confusing. Garza will be 28 all of next year, is an absolute stud, and will be an extreme value no matter what he makes next year. There's literally almost no chance a team will be willing to give us what it would take to make sense to move him. The really confusing thing is that both sides of this debate - the "we can win soon" and "we can't win for at least 3-4 years" debate - should love having Garza on the team. He helps us win right now and will continue to do so for at least 4 more years. There is really no upside whatsoever to trading Garza, since any trade we could come up with isn't realistically happening.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This idea of trading Garza, which seems to have a lot of traction on this board, is really confusing. Garza will be 28 all of next year, is an absolute stud, and will be an extreme value no matter what he makes next year. There's literally almost no chance a team will be willing to give us what it would take to make sense to move him. The really confusing thing is that both sides of this debate - the "we can win soon" and "we can't win for at least 3-4 years" debate - should love having Garza on the team. He helps us win right now and will continue to do so for at least 4 more years. There is really no upside whatsoever to trading Garza, since any trade we could come up with isn't realistically happening.

 

He's only under contract for two more years. You can't really include years 3 and 4 in his value to the team.

[dew1679666265]

He's only under contract for two more years. You can't really include years 3 and 4 in his value to the team.

 

From the standpoint of being a highly productive, top of the line pitcher you can. It's not a 100% guarantee that the Cubs will re-sign him, but if they don't it'd be either because he gets hurt (which is a separate issue) or he and his agent decide they won't take less than a 10/300 deal or something silly like that.

 

I agree with you that you can't include years 3 and 4 in setting trade value for him, but you can in determining how long he's likely to be a highly productive major league pitcher. And that's the point I was making - that he'll likely be an elite starter for the next 4 years or possibly more.

[davell]

In order for me to condone trading Garza, I'd want a future ace type starter and a potential middle of the order bat as well. Nothing less than that. Otherwise, lock him up for 4 years and 50ish mill. Maybe even 5 and 65, if it comes down to it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

to be fair, if we sign Pujols/Fielder + Wilson, we'll be down a second and a third round draft pick next year.

 

Yeah, I know. But, would anyone be missing them if we had Pujols/Fielder + CJ on the team 4 years from now? Well, anyone other than Dave?

 

Given how many prospects actually make it from the draft to the majors, I'm not sure it's much of a hit to the future.

 

Not to mention that our draft MO seems to have shifted to late round over slots unless Selig takes that away.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Just imagining what the 2014 Cubs could look at with some smart spending and quality help from the farm

 

1B Prince Fielder

2B Junior Lake

SS Starlin Castro

3B Blake DeWitt/DJ LeMahieu

LF Josh Vitters

CF Brett Jackson

RF Cespedes

C Wellington Castillo/Geo Soto

SP Matt Cain

SP Matt Garza

SP Gavin Gloyd

SP Trey McNutt

SP Struck/Rhee/Whitenack

CL Andrew Cashner

BP Sean Marshall

BP Rafael Dolis

BP Chris Carpenter

BP Jeff Beliveau

BP James Russell

BP Kevin Rhoderick

Bench Matt Sczcur

Bench DJ LeMahieu

Bench Tyler Colvin/Tony Campana

Bench Darwin Barney

Bench Steve Clevenger