Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[mookie]

I wonder if losing V-Mart will make the Tigers more aggressive? That is a pretty large stick they just lost, and I don't think they have much in line to replace him.

 

Big blow for the Tigers.

[Northside Blues]

Or we could trade them a catcher...

[Guest]

Or we could trade them a catcher...

 

They have Avila.

 

They're not looking for a catcher; they're looking for a DH. Soto isn't quite as valuable to them.

[davell]

Avila is damn good. Do you want them to DH Soto? To me, Garza and Byrd makes sense for them now though. Could be a way to get Turner and Castellanos, even if it wound up a 2 for 2 deal. I'd still prefer Turner, Smyly, and Crosby, even for the pair personally.

[Schwarber Fan]

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2006/04/soriano10.jpg

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I wonder if losing V-Mart will make the Tigers more aggressive? That is a pretty large stick they just lost, and I don't think they have much in line to replace him.

 

Big blow for the Tigers.

 

 

Thought the same thing...they're the one team I like trading Garza to.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Tigers seem good enough to me, at least in comparison to the rest of their division that they could probably wait until the summer to see what becomes available.

[bsucubsfan]

Doubtful tigers deal Turner and Castellanos just because they lost Victor Martinez.

 

But if they do and would be interested in a package centered around garza/byrd. Cubs need to put whatever prospects not named rizzo, jackson in it with them to make it work. Rizzo, Jackson, Turner, Castellanos would be a nice core to build around.

[bukie]

Not sure how losing Victor Martinez is going to make the Tigers more desperate for Garza. I think he'd make a lousy DH.

[davell]

If anything, maybe this puts a little pressure on KC to make a "go for it" type move. They certainly have the pieces, even without dealing Myers or even Montgomery, who I'm not all that thrilled about as it is. A package of Cuthbert/Odorizzi/Duffy would be great value in my opinion.

[Clem Fandango]

Not sure how losing Victor Martinez is going to make the Tigers more desperate for Garza. I think he'd make a lousy DH.

 

No, but packaging Garza with Soriano and most of his contract or Marlon Byrd, etc. might be enough to entice them to trigger a trade.

[CubsWin]

Not sure how losing Victor Martinez is going to make the Tigers more desperate for Garza. I think he'd make a lousy DH.

I think Dave Dombrowski knows that it's about winning games not scoring runs.

[CubsWin]

Not sure how losing Victor Martinez is going to make the Tigers more desperate for Garza. I think he'd make a lousy DH.

 

No, but packaging Garza with Soriano and most of his contract or Marlon Byrd, etc. might be enough to entice them to trigger a trade.

Agreed. But you wouldn't even need to include Soriano for Dombrowski to know he needs Garza now more than ever in order to win the AL Central this year.

 

And with all the FA options out there that could be signed for just one year, why would the Tigers want Soriano for the next 3 years when V-Mart is only going to be out this year?

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Not sure how losing Victor Martinez is going to make the Tigers more desperate for Garza. I think he'd make a lousy DH.

 

OTOH he'd help in run prevention.

[wade]

Sori would be tough to thrown in to the Tigers, IMO. One reason Detroit targeted VMart in the first place is his left handed bat against righty pitchers.

 

I wonder if they'd make a play for Pena (if he's willing to DH).

[Guest]

Brett with an update on Garza talks

 

On Garza, generally, I’m told that teams (the same names you’ve come to know and love) have started re-approaching the Cubs. The sense I get is that talks with a number of teams were hot and then cold, hot and then cold, based primarily on the Cubs’ high demands. Whether the current re-approaches mean teams are more willing to meet the Cubs’ high demands, or simply mean teams are are still looking to pick up a starter and now wonder if the Cubs have dropped their price, I don’t know.

 

Something to keep in mind on Garza trade talks: if the Cubs would like to net a prospect who was picked in the 2011 draft, they can’t make the trade for a little while yet. Why? Signed draft picks can’t be traded until one year after they sign. They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/01/18/lukewarm-stove-garza-cespedes-byrd-soriano-soler-marshall/

[SouthSideRyan]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

[Little Slide Rooter]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

 

Isn't that what the Indians did with Pomerantz in the Ubaldo trade? Now there's a trade that could look very, very bad for the Indians in a few years time.

[Rob]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

 

Isn't that what the Indians did with Pomerantz in the Ubaldo trade? Now there's a trade that could look very, very bad for the Indians in a few years time.

 

Wasn't that only like a month or so? I don't ever recall a guy being shelved for six months to be a PTBNL.

[Little Slide Rooter]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

 

Isn't that what the Indians did with Pomerantz in the Ubaldo trade? Now there's a trade that could look very, very bad for the Indians in a few years time.

 

Wasn't that only like a month or so? I don't ever recall a guy being shelved for six months to be a PTBNL.

 

 

I think it was a month or two, but they did use the principle. Not sure if they've ever gone a full six months, but if you don't need a guy right then and there I don't see why you couldn't.

[SouthSideRyan]

Beacause either one franchise has to waste 6 months developing a guy that isn't their property, or another franchise has to watch their prospect stagnate since the other team doesn't care about his development.

[davell]

I saw a tidbit from Levine in his Soriano article, that basically said we had asked Detroit for Turner and a =young lefty". I guess it means Smyly or Crosby? At any rate, if that's where Detroit is at with us, I hope they blink. Even if it's a 2 for 1, I'm fine with that.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I saw a tidbit from Levine in his Soriano article, that basically said we had asked Detroit for Turner and a =young lefty". I guess it means Smyly or Crosby? At any rate, if that's where Detroit is at with us, I hope they blink. Even if it's a 2 for 1, I'm fine with that.

 

Yup. Two guys with that much upside are more than a sufficent return for Garza. I'd even be willing to throw in Byrd for an additional prospect from their top 15-20. I know there's no urgency to trade Garza, but Detroit doesnt exactly have any urgency to acquire him, though he would be a great addition to their rotation. I'd think that Toronto would be pushing the hardest for Garza. If they could get him and sign Fielder they'd finally be a legit threat in the division.

[TruffleShuffle]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

 

Isn't that what the Indians did with Pomerantz in the Ubaldo trade? Now there's a trade that could look very, very bad for the Indians in a few years time.

 

Wasn't that only like a month or so? I don't ever recall a guy being shelved for six months to be a PTBNL.

 

i know bonderman was the ptbnl in a 3-way deal (involving the a's and tigers, plus some other team) in 2002, but the deal went down in early july and he had signed in mid to late august the previous year. looking at his minor league stats, i can only assume that he continued to pitch with the a's organization and then changed hands when he officially became part of the deal, because he threw 144 innings with the a's a-ball affiliate and then made just 2 starts with the tigers' affiliate.

 

i have a hard time believing that the cubs would want a guy from the 2011 draft in february, considering that he'd have to sit out most of the season or hope that the other organization is willing to handle him properly for a few months.

[Little Slide Rooter]

They can be players to be named later before that, but a PTBNL has to be “named” within six months of the trade. So, do a little subtraction, and knowing that most of the top prospects in the draft didn’t sign until mid-August, that would mean mid-February is the earliest that such a trade could happen (with the Cubs not officially getting the kid until he is “named” in August).

 

This is mentioned all the time, but does this ever happen?

 

Isn't that what the Indians did with Pomerantz in the Ubaldo trade? Now there's a trade that could look very, very bad for the Indians in a few years time.

 

Wasn't that only like a month or so? I don't ever recall a guy being shelved for six months to be a PTBNL.

 

i know bonderman was the ptbnl in a 3-way deal (involving the a's and tigers, plus some other team) in 2002, but the deal went down in early july and he had signed in mid to late august the previous year. looking at his minor league stats, i can only assume that he continued to pitch with the a's organization and then changed hands when he officially became part of the deal, because he threw 144 innings with the a's a-ball affiliate and then made just 2 starts with the tigers' affiliate.

 

i have a hard time believing that the cubs would want a guy from the 2011 draft in february, considering that he'd have to sit out most of the season or hope that the other organization is willing to handle him properly for a few months.

 

Couldn't it be part of the deal that there could be somebody from our side monitoring the investment from a distance? If they seeemed to be clearly mishandling him it would get back to our side and the players association or even the commisioner would probably step in. Then again, that would take away the wink wink nature of the PTBNL. I guess I just don't see why baseball is the only sport in which you can't trade draft picks or make draft day trades. Washington could have really made a killing had they been able to trade their '09 & '10 picks. Sure, it could make it look too easy for the rich teams to keep getting top prospects, but it would also be a great chance for the smaller market, perenial celler dwellers to really build their teams or farm systems.