Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Little Slide Rooter]

If it was clear to Jed and Theo that we're simply not going to get the type of return for Garza that they want, wouln't it make sense to pull him back and start aggressively shopping Dempster? Obviously he won't bring back anything near what Garza could, but we could still get something from a team looking for a veteran starter and doesn't want to pay Jacksons asking price or the prospects that Garza, Floyd, or Jurrjens would cost. I'd guess that Dempster could bring in something from the back end of another teams top 10 or one of those 25-27 year old former top prospects that Theo loves as well as an additonal young, high ceiling guy.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

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.

 

Just stop.

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

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.

 

Just stop.

 

I just don't think that the Tigers(or whoever in a hypothetical scenerio) would intentionally or unintentionally poorly handle the player because he's there on borrowed time.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's an untenable situation, expecting another organization to handle a player in a manner consistent with the wishes of the organization who will own that player at the end of the year. you can get by for a month or so, like was done with bonderman, but I can't think of a time that a guy played most of a season with another org after being traded. and for good reason, because that would be silly.

[ctcf]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

It's fine to have these things bouncing around your head. If they come together and can be expressed as a coherent thought or question, go ahead and post that. But just posting pure stream of consciousness isn't particularly helpful.

[illiniguy]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

They probably are another year away at least from catching the Tigers. But, I think they'll finish second in the AL Central.

[ctcf]

BleacherNation, which is down at the moment, claims that the Matt Garza trade and resurgence of the efforts to resolve the Red Sox compensation are related, which is interesting.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/01/19/multiple-sources-efforts-to-trade-matt-garza-and-the-timing-of-the-theo-epstein-compensation-resolution-are-related/

 

With that thorough preamble in mind, I have heard today, from multiple sources (within one hour of each other), a variety of non-specific things that all coalesce into one narrative, the truth of which I’m certain: the reason the Theo Epstein compensation issue is coming to a head this week is because it is impacting the Cubs’ efforts to consider trade opportunities for Matt Garza.

[Little Slide Rooter]

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.

 

It's fine to have these things bouncing around your head. If they come together and can be expressed as a coherent thought or question, go ahead and post that. But just posting pure stream of consciousness isn't particularly helpful.

 

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.

-Scenerio in which the deal could work with the best interests of the team acquiring the prospect.

 

Then again, that would take away the wink wink nature of the PTBNL.

-why it might be considered "cheating" the system.

 

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

-Directly related to the discussion. It would make PTBNL deals a lot easier. Legit question.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

They probably are another year away at least from catching the Tigers. But, I think they'll finish second in the AL Central.

 

That offense could be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. As for pitching, they'll need more than 1 front end starter unless Luke Hochever suddenly becomes an ace.

[illiniguy]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

They probably are another year away at least from catching the Tigers. But, I think they'll finish second in the AL Central.

 

That offense could be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. As for pitching, they'll need more than 1 front end starter unless Luke Hochever suddenly becomes an ace.

Are you assuming no improvement from Danny Duffy? Michael Montgomery?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

They probably are another year away at least from catching the Tigers. But, I think they'll finish second in the AL Central.

 

That offense could be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. As for pitching, they'll need more than 1 front end starter unless Luke Hochever suddenly becomes an ace.

Are you assuming no improvement from Danny Duffy? Michael Montgomery?

 

Not to the point that they can anchor a pitching staff by 2012.

[illiniguy]

I feel a little ridiculous even typing this, but... Jon Morosi was speculating on Twitter that the Royals could conceivably be a "front-line" starter away from being able to challenge the Tigers for the rather blah AL Central. As someone that has certainly not kept up on that team, is there any chance that isn't a totally dumb speculation? I'd have to imagine that Garza would be an intriguing target for them were that the case.

They probably are another year away at least from catching the Tigers. But, I think they'll finish second in the AL Central.

 

That offense could be a force to be reckoned with for years to come. As for pitching, they'll need more than 1 front end starter unless Luke Hochever suddenly becomes an ace.

Are you assuming no improvement from Danny Duffy? Michael Montgomery?

 

Not to the point that they can anchor a pitching staff by 2012.

Yes, 2013 should be their target date for competing.

[mookie]

Should, but doesn't have to be. Dayton Moore can really put that team in a position to win with a trade and subsequent extension of Garza, followed by signing a decently cheap Oswalt.

 

Garza

Oswalt

Sanchez

Hochevar

Duffy

 

Not bad.

[illiniguy]

Should, but doesn't have to be. Dayton Moore can really put that team in a position to win with a trade and subsequent extension of Garza, followed by signing a decently cheap Oswalt.

 

Garza

Oswalt

Sanchez

Hochevar

Duffy

 

Not bad.

It's bad if it costs them Montgomery and Myers to get Garza.

[ctcf]

Really?

 

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

View of rival executives: Matt Garza's $10.225 million arbitration request greatly complicates any interest in him as a trade target.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Really?

 

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

View of rival executives: Matt Garza's $10.225 million arbitration request greatly complicates any interest in him as a trade target.

 

 

View of rival executives: This used car has some real signs of wear on the hoses, and I don't even like the paint color that much. I guess maybe if you knocked a bit off the price...

[Little Slide Rooter]

Really?

 

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

View of rival executives: Matt Garza's $10.225 million arbitration request greatly complicates any interest in him as a trade target.

 

My guess is that more than the 10.225 asking price, their concern is that if he's asking for that much now, how much it cost to extend him, which a team giving up multiple top prospects would certainly plan to do.

[davell]

I don't believe Olney whatsoever. Everyone assumes he'll get around 9 in arbitration. Which is exactly where he'll wind up. I doubt the Cubs and his agent tried too hard on anything, because it's probably 50/50 as to whether we extend him or trade him. 2 years of Garza is enough to procure a good package of talent. Whether his next team extends him or not. Because he's a guy they can offer arb to and get comp picks for even if they lose him.

[Clem Fandango]

Really?

 

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

View of rival executives: Matt Garza's $10.225 million arbitration request greatly complicates any interest in him as a trade target.

 

Well it's a good thing he was worth more than $20 million last year so that's one hell of a bargain!

[davell]

Oops, Garza's asking arb number is 12.5, not 10.225, per Levine. Hell, does this complicate trading him? To me, the answer's still no, because since it's either/or, he's not winning his case.

[Guest]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/01/19/multiple-sources-efforts-to-trade-matt-garza-and-the-timing-of-the-theo-epstein-compensation-resolution-are-related/

 

With that thorough preamble in mind, I have heard today, from multiple sources (within one hour of each other), a variety of non-specific things that all coalesce into one narrative, the truth of which I’m certain: the reason the Theo Epstein compensation issue is coming to a head this week is because it is impacting the Cubs’ efforts to consider trade opportunities for Matt Garza.

I don't think that has anything to do with the destination but perhaps who goes with Garza. The Red Sox aren't getting Garza for Theo.

[davearm2]

Really?

 

Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN

View of rival executives: Matt Garza's $10.225 million arbitration request greatly complicates any interest in him as a trade target.

Yep nobody could have seen that coming. :roll:

[Hairyducked Idiot]

https://twitter.com/#!/ESPNChiCubs/status/160082953962135552

 

Levine confirms that it's actually $12.5 million for Garza.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/01/19/matt-garza-actually-requested-12-5-million-in-arbitration-not-10-225-million/

 

This sort of ties in earlier with Brett's implication that Garza's not all that open to a contract extension. Dude is looking to get paid.