Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[mul21]

What do you guys think would be an over-under on an extension deal? Anything less is a good deal, but this is as far as I'd go, and anything over is worse than no deal at all?

 

$60/5? $65/5? $75/6? $56/4?

 

I doubt Garza would sign this, but I'd like to see a five year extension with two vesting option years potentially taking him through his age 34 season.

 

2012 - $9

2013 - $12

2014 - $14

2015 - $14

2016 - $14

2017 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2015 and 2016

2018 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2016 and 2017

 

Full no-trade clause through 2014. Limited no-trade protection for 2015 and 2016. No no-trade protection for 2017 and 2018.

 

That's $63/5 guaranteed. Potentially $91/7.

 

That's a great deal for the Cubs, but if I was his agent, there's no way I'd agree to that. He'd have to be getting something like $15-18MM in each of those FA years to make it worthwhile because you're paying about market value for his last 2 years under team control. And I have no doubt that he'd probably get a deal similar to what Z got when he re-signed (5/$90MM was it?) or better if he actually hits the open market.

[Lefty]

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

 

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be.

 

There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team.

[abuck1220]

that's the price you pay for wanting to have him when the cubs could potentially be good again.

 

if they continue with the attitude of "we can't give ____ a bunch of money because we're more than one player away," they will never get another good player/be good again.

[Backtobanks]

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

 

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be.

 

There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team.

 

Without spending the $20 million over the next two years we might be a 60-win team.

[illiniguy]

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

 

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be.

 

There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team.

 

Without spending the $20 million over the next two years we might be a 60-win team.

You've got Garza worth 30 wins over the next two years?

[Vanilla Ice]

If Matt Garza is a 15 WAR pitcher, then we better get somebody's entire farm system.

[Backtobanks]

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

 

I don't think there's any question whether they can afford to resign him, I think they might just not want to resign him. My guess is management might not view him as the elite pitcher he will no doubt be paid to be.

 

There is also the issue of spending $20 million over the next two years for the ace of a 75 win team.

 

Without spending the $20 million over the next two years we might be a 60-win team.

You've got Garza worth 30 wins over the next two years?

 

It could be that it was an exaggeration that the 2012-2013 teams are 75-win teams with Garza.

[Guest]

 

It could be that it was an exaggeration that the 2012-2013 teams are 75-win teams with Garza.

 

Nah. It couldn't.

[rawaction]

If the Cubs couldn't afford to re-sign Garza, I'd take a deal without the Tigers top 2 involved. But if you don't get Turner or Castellanos, then you'd just keep Garza. Have to get at least 1 elite prospect out of the deal or you are doing the deal just for the sake of doing it.

 

Garza will be young enough and good enough in 2-3 years to be a TOR starter for the Cubs, so it doesn't make sense to trade him for anything less than an elite prospect (or two). We've got enough middle-of-the-rotation/back-of-the-rotation/question marks.

 

By "if the Cubs couldn't afford Garza", I meant that if the Cubs were a small market team they could take quantity over quality. Basically, the Cubs don't HAVE to trade Garza, unlike teams like the A's, pre-stadium Marlins, and Rays. They shouldn't get a package of players like a team that is financially forced to trade their good players.

[Guest]

What do you guys think would be an over-under on an extension deal? Anything less is a good deal, but this is as far as I'd go, and anything over is worse than no deal at all?

 

$60/5? $65/5? $75/6? $56/4?

 

I doubt Garza would sign this, but I'd like to see a five year extension with two vesting option years potentially taking him through his age 34 season.

 

2012 - $9

2013 - $12

2014 - $14

2015 - $14

2016 - $14

2017 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2015 and 2016

2018 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2016 and 2017

 

Full no-trade clause through 2014. Limited no-trade protection for 2015 and 2016. No no-trade protection for 2017 and 2018.

 

That's $63/5 guaranteed. Potentially $91/7.

He'd be 10/5 at some point in there.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

What do you guys think would be an over-under on an extension deal? Anything less is a good deal, but this is as far as I'd go, and anything over is worse than no deal at all?

 

$60/5? $65/5? $75/6? $56/4?

 

I doubt Garza would sign this, but I'd like to see a five year extension with two vesting option years potentially taking him through his age 34 season.

 

2012 - $9

2013 - $12

2014 - $14

2015 - $14

2016 - $14

2017 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2015 and 2016

2018 - $14 vesting option based on IP combined in 2016 and 2017

 

Full no-trade clause through 2014. Limited no-trade protection for 2015 and 2016. No no-trade protection for 2017 and 2018.

 

That's $63/5 guaranteed. Potentially $91/7.

He'd be 10/5 at some point in there.

Not until after 2017 if my math is correct.

[Backtobanks]

 

It could be that it was an exaggeration that the 2012-2013 teams are 75-win teams with Garza.

 

Nah. It couldn't.

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

[Guest]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

Beat me to it, but yea.

[CubColtPacer]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

I have them being between 70-75, but projecting the Cubs win total with any level of confidence will be really hard next year because there are so many players who could range all the way from breaking out to being awful. The 2013 projection even without any upgrades between now and then would be higher than that just because Jackson/Rizzo will probably outproduce the players playing in that position in 2012. And as much money as the Cubs had this year, they'll have a whole lot more next year.

[Tracer Bullet]

I have 102. Let me check my math.

[Backtobanks]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

[TruffleShuffle]

I have 102. Let me check my math.

 

forgot to divide by two.

[Guest]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

It's best to just ignore the upgrades when doing these calculations.

[Tracer Bullet]

I have 102. Let me check my math.

 

forgot to divide by two.

 

My calculation included inside info re the signing of Kerry Wood.

[Backtobanks]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

It's best to just ignore the upgrades when doing these calculations.

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

[A New Era]

 

I guess it's too early to predict 2013, but the 2012 team certainly isn't a 75-win team.

 

 

I don't think that's certain at all. That's right about where I have them.

 

A whole lot will have to go right for them to win 75 games. LaHair is a downgrade at 1B, Stewart is a downgrade at 3B, and whoever replaces Marshall is a downgrade from a 71 win team. That's with the roster as it stands now (with Garza, Byrd, Soriano, etc.), but trading any of those players would also be an immediate downgrade for 2012.

 

 

You're kinda forgetting something important. The #4 and #5 pitchers the entire year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Many of the upgrades (i.e. back of the rotation) are still question marks.

 

Every single player on every major league roster is a "question mark." What does that even mean?

[ctcf]

So the Yankees gave their rotation a pretty huge upgrade tonight out of nowhere with Pineda and Kuroda. I've gotta think this could make the Jays/Red Sox overpay for Garza to keep them in the race.

[huff]

yea..

 

CC

Kuroda

Nova

Pineda

Hughes

garcia/swing

 

is pretty stout rotation with that offense. great deals for the yankees