Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guest]

Dual fronts.

 

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons.

 

That certainly seems like an intellectually honest thing to say.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm just a huge fan of acquiring talent for nothing but cash. It's why I'm pissed about the draft rules. It's why I want us to sign Cespedes(who i'm not even that enamored with), Soler(who I am) and any other big ticket foreign FA while we have the chance. You can't build a team through free agency, but it certainly helps you build a team because you don't have to part with any of the prospects who will be cost-controlled talent for you.

 

If we have the great talent evaulators that we're supposed to, it shouldn't take dealing young quality talent to make our farm elite. Hell, signing Cespedes and Soler would put us as a top 10 farm system.

 

You go through this season and you trade Dempster, Byrd, Marmol to get a couple pieces who could be interesting some day, and you keep building the farm through the draft and signings. All the while, you already have a #2 starter(I hate those classifications) on your team.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dual fronts.

 

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons.

 

That certainly seems like an intellectually honest thing to say.

 

A rather uninspiring post if you ask me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Dual fronts.

 

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons.

 

That certainly seems like an intellectually honest thing to say.

 

I can't find the eyeroll face thingie, but it's got to be on here somewhere.

 

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that. In the meantime, I don't think a little factually true snark is going to lower the tone too much.

 

Oh wait, there it is, between devil horns and winkie face.

 

:roll:

[Guest]

Dual fronts.

 

We got Paul Maholm. I don't know how much more you want on the MLB front than that. Heck, he's only averaged half a fWAR less than Garza the last four seasons.

 

That certainly seems like an intellectually honest thing to say.

 

I can't find the eyeroll face thingie, but it's got to be on here somewhere.

 

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that. In the meantime, I don't think a little factually true snark is going to lower the tone too much.

 

Oh wait, there it is, between devil horns and winkie face.

 

:roll:

 

I'm pretty sure someone asked you about that already. What is it about Garza's breakout that you find unsustainable? I'm willing to admit he may not repeat a 5 WAR next year, but there's enough sustainable improvement that I don't see why he won't be a 4 WAR guy. With that type of prognosis, there's very little value lost in not trading him now, and if he puts that season under his belt, then signing him to a 4-5 year deal to take him through age 32-33 would be a very good decision for a team with the Cubs resources and current talent.

[jersey cubs fan]

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that.

 

So previous to 2011 he was just mediocre?

[mookie]

Are some of you really going to be seriously upset if Garza is dealt? I know there are caveats, so lets just say the package will range from absolutely fair (about the same as we gave to Tampa) to slight overpay (Better than Tampa package). Still upset?

[Guest]

Are some of you really going to be seriously upset if Garza is dealt? I know there are caveats, so lets just say the package will range from absolutely fair (about the same as we gave to Tampa) to slight overpay (Better than Tampa package). Still upset?

 

I want an impact talent that is close to the major leagues as a starting point for Garza, and one to two other pieces that are of some value. If we get Turner, Smyly, and an upside guy in A ball from Detroit, I don't think there's anyone who will be upset. The point being made is that there are other avenues to capitalize on Garza's value too. Because if we can't get strong value in exchange for him, we should be using those avenues instead.

[SouthSideRyan]

I know the team acquiring him would get 1 less year of him than we did, but considering the respective years he's coming off in each trade, I'd be disappointed to get the same level of package.

 

ETA: I certainly wouldn't do trade-backs with Tampa right now.

Edited February 3, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[mookie]

Are some of you really going to be seriously upset if Garza is dealt? I know there are caveats, so lets just say the package will range from absolutely fair (about the same as we gave to Tampa) to slight overpay (Better than Tampa package). Still upset?

 

I want an impact talent that is close to the major leagues as a starting point for Garza, and one to two other pieces that are of some value. If we get Turner, Smyly, and an upside guy in A ball from Detroit, I don't think there's anyone who will be upset. The point being made is that there are other avenues to capitalize on Garza's value too. Because if we can't get strong value in exchange for him, we should be using those avenues instead.

 

Right, but all signs point to a trade. We could get a pick for him or hope for a 4/52 deal. I get that everyone wants value for Garza. Where I am confused is why there is this perception that we won't get strong value.

[KingCubsFan]

God, we better wind up with the best farm system ever if we're planning on using much of it to acquire expensive players.

 

The owner came in, talked a ton about building the farm system, and threw a bunch of money at it. Then he went out and hired a bunch of guys for the front office who have a history of excellent drafting, and he said that's why they were hired.

 

So yeah, that's kind of the plan.

 

Dual fronts.

I think it's pretty clear by now that future>>>>>present in Theo's mind. The whole "dual fronts" thing probably had more to do with keeping fans interested until we're actually good.

 

Most fans thought we needed to burn down Wrigley with the team inside and play nothing but minor league players for the next 3 years. (Maybe Barney would be spared)

You forgot Campana. Most fans are stupid. The typical fan thinks trading (a) Soriano and Zambrano and (b) getting a bunch of guys who run hard to first and play the "right way" will put them on the path to greatness.

[davell]

The reason I like Toronto is because conceivably you could get McGuire(as close to a sure thing 3/4 as there probably is in the minors right now) Gose or Marisnick(bigtime upside CFers who could play or be trade bait) and one of Nicolino or Syndergaard(2 guys with 1 or 2 potential, but a long way away). The reason I like this type of package is it's got 1 guy you can pencil in(McGuire) and 2 others who could wind up as top 10 type prospects that could conceivably be dealt or used. Plus, the money saved could go towards more pitching as well. I totally understand wanting ONE bigtime guy who's close to the majors, but I'd rather spread out my cards a bit and feel our chances of getting a bigtime talent is safer by choosing the strength in numbers approach with the talent being further away.

[seanimal]

I'm just a huge fan of acquiring talent for nothing but cash. It's why I'm pissed about the draft rules. It's why I want us to sign Cespedes(who i'm not even that enamored with), Soler(who I am) and any other big ticket foreign FA while we have the chance. You can't build a team through free agency, but it certainly helps you build a team because you don't have to part with any of the prospects who will be cost-controlled talent for you.

 

If we have the great talent evaulators that we're supposed to, it shouldn't take dealing young quality talent to make our farm elite. Hell, signing Cespedes and Soler would put us as a top 10 farm system.

 

You go through this season and you trade Dempster, Byrd, Marmol to get a couple pieces who could be interesting some day, and you keep building the farm through the draft and signings. All the while, you already have a #2 starter(I hate those classifications) on your team.

 

absolutely. unless we're getting blown away with the package, which we're definitely not at this point, i just don't get the eagerness to trade garza. sure, we should be converting coveted major league players into long-term assets, but at some point it basically becomes a fetish that could ultimately hurt the organization long-term. what we forget is that the talent development capabilities of this organization, until proven otherwise, are not that great. until this group is getting results turning prospects into big league performers, we might want to think about holding on to the ones we have.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay, fine, here we go. Projecting Matt Garza.

 

From 2008 to 2010, his first three full seasons in the majors, Garza had a very clear ability level. Actually, his partial seasons with the Twins matched up pretty well, too, but we'll skip those to be fair.

 

FIP: 4.14, 4.17, 4.42

xFIP: 4.42, 4.14, 4.31

 

Those are pretty mediocre numbers, and it's not hard to see why. The K-rates (6.2, 8.4, 6.8) averaged out to above-average but uninspiring, while he walked a little more than you'd like (2.9, 3.5, 2.8) and gave up too many home runs (0.9, 1.1, 1.2). He was also a fairly extreme fly ball pitcher, which explains his consistently .270ish BABIP.

 

In 2011, three things changed, and they are all somewhat related. 1) He switched leagues out of the difficult AL East. 2) He went from throwing 72% fastballs to 53%, with the difference split up among his curve, changeup and slider. 3) He went from extreme flyball pitcher to a fairly neutral one.

 

The result was a new high in K-rate (9.0) and a decrease in home runs (down to 0.6), resulting in impressive 2.95 FIP and 3.19 xFIP.

 

Okay, so how sustainable is it for him to throw offspeed stuff on 47% of his pitches and maintain that success? I'm skeptical.

 

Using fangraphs, in 2009 and 2010, there were 17 pitcher seasons when the pitcher threw fastballs (including cutters) less than 55% of the time and had at least a 3.5 fWAR. 15 of the 17 saw a decrease in their fWAR the next season, with an average change of -1.9 fWAR.

 

Relying heavily on breaking balls for improvement looks pretty ephemeral to me. It increases the risk of injury, and eventually the hitters just plain catch on. Combine that with a huge jump in performance, and I say the plexiglass principle is about to hit Matt Garza very, very hard. He'll likely never be more valuable on the trade market than he is right now.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that.

 

So previous to 2011 he was just mediocre?

 

What would you call a pitcher who averaged 2.5 fWAR per full season, including 1.6 in his most recent?

[Guest]

Right, but all signs point to a trade. We could get a pick for him or hope for a 4/52 deal. I get that everyone wants value for Garza. Where I am confused is why there is this perception that we won't get strong value.

 

It's about drawing a line. As the time wears on, you're seeing expectations for Garza's trade return get lower and lower. And honestly, outside of packages involving Turner, I haven't seen a whole lot rumored that sounds like it'd be worth the while, especially now that the Yankees filled their rotation.

[jersey cubs fan]

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about Garza's projections and how to reconcile his 2011 with his previously mediocre years, I can do that.

 

So previous to 2011 he was just mediocre?

 

What would you call a pitcher who averaged 2.5 fWAR per full season, including 1.6 in his most recent?

 

I would call him a young pitcher who had pretty damn good age 24/25 seasons and a mediocre age 26, then a tremendous age 27 season. His partial seasons at age 22 and 23 were nice introductions to the big leagues.

[Guest]

Using fangraphs, in 2009 and 2010, there were 17 pitcher seasons when the pitcher threw fastballs (including cutters) less than 55% of the time and had at least a 3.5 fWAR. 15 of the 17 saw a decrease in their fWAR the next season, with an average change of -1.9 fWAR.

 

Relying heavily on breaking balls for improvement looks pretty ephemeral to me. It increases the risk of injury, and eventually the hitters just plain catch on. Combine that with a huge jump in performance, and I say the plexiglass principle is about to hit Matt Garza very, very hard. He'll likely never be more valuable on the trade market than he is right now.

 

Who are those pitchers?

 

Garza's improving performance throughout last year(including a lights out August/September) doesn't do much for the notion that his change in repertoire is a fad that will be quickly figured out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Using fangraphs, in 2009 and 2010, there were 17 pitcher seasons when the pitcher threw fastballs (including cutters) less than 55% of the time and had at least a 3.5 fWAR. 15 of the 17 saw a decrease in their fWAR the next season, with an average change of -1.9 fWAR.

 

Relying heavily on breaking balls for improvement looks pretty ephemeral to me. It increases the risk of injury, and eventually the hitters just plain catch on. Combine that with a huge jump in performance, and I say the plexiglass principle is about to hit Matt Garza very, very hard. He'll likely never be more valuable on the trade market than he is right now.

 

Who are those pitchers?

 

Garza's improving performance throughout last year(including a lights out August/September) don't do much for the notion that his change in repertoire is a fad that will be quickly figured out.

 

You're gonna make me go through the list again? Too much work. Off the top of my head, I remember Wainwright, Carpenter, Kuroda, Oswalt, and Nolasco all making appearances on the list.

[SouthSideRyan]

How many of those 17 had drops in WAR due to injuries? How many of them had circumstances other than throwing more breaking balls leading to these injuries?

 

How many of those 17 were on the back half of their career?

 

What % of all 3.5+ fWAR guys decline the following year?

[Tracer Bullet]

Okay, fine, here we go. Projecting Matt Garza.

 

From 2008 to 2010, his first three full seasons in the majors, Garza had a very clear ability level. Actually, his partial seasons with the Twins matched up pretty well, too, but we'll skip those to be fair.

 

FIP: 4.14, 4.17, 4.42

xFIP: 4.42, 4.14, 4.31

 

Those are pretty mediocre numbers, and it's not hard to see why. The K-rates (6.2, 8.4, 6.8) averaged out to above-average but uninspiring, while he walked a little more than you'd like (2.9, 3.5, 2.8) and gave up too many home runs (0.9, 1.1, 1.2). He was also a fairly extreme fly ball pitcher, which explains his consistently .270ish BABIP.

 

In 2011, three things changed, and they are all somewhat related. 1) He switched leagues out of the difficult AL East. 2) He went from throwing 72% fastballs to 53%, with the difference split up among his curve, changeup and slider. 3) He went from extreme flyball pitcher to a fairly neutral one.

 

The result was a new high in K-rate (9.0) and a decrease in home runs (down to 0.6), resulting in impressive 2.95 FIP and 3.19 xFIP.

 

Okay, so how sustainable is it for him to throw offspeed stuff on 47% of his pitches and maintain that success? I'm skeptical.

 

Using fangraphs, in 2009 and 2010, there were 17 pitcher seasons when the pitcher threw fastballs (including cutters) less than 55% of the time and had at least a 3.5 fWAR. 15 of the 17 saw a decrease in their fWAR the next season, with an average change of -1.9 fWAR.

 

Relying heavily on breaking balls for improvement looks pretty ephemeral to me. It increases the risk of injury, and eventually the hitters just plain catch on. Combine that with a huge jump in performance, and I say the plexiglass principle is about to hit Matt Garza very, very hard. He'll likely never be more valuable on the trade market than he is right now.

 

That's a lot of summary info and conclusions without much info. 1.9 was the average. Ok, but that doesn't say much and has little predictive value for Garza.

 

Who were the guys. How many of them went from toughest division to the NLC (an NLC without prince and pujols now).

 

What did they do in Y2? Bounce back a bit, a lot, plateau, collapse?

 

Did the increase in breaking balls actually result in injury as you suggest?

 

Did they change the % again in Y2?

 

Etc, etc, etc.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How many of those 17 had drops in WAR due to injuries? How many of them had circumstances other than throwing more breaking balls leading to these injuries?

 

Wainwright and arguably Liriano, iirc. Oh, and Oswalt's back.

 

How many of those 17 were on the back half of their career?

 

It was pretty mixed. Nolasco was on there, as was Liriano. Ricky Romero just missed the cut (55.3%).

 

 

What % of all 3.5+ fWAR guys decline the following year?

 

Too much work.

[noisesquared]

Didn't see it elsewhere yet - ESPN reports Cubs and Garza avoid arb, agree to 1yr/$9.5mil contract...

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7536437/chicago-cubs-matt-garza-agree-95-million-deal

[Banedon]

Didn't see it elsewhere yet - ESPN reports Cubs and Garza avoid arb, agree to 1yr/$9.5mil contract...

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7536437/chicago-cubs-matt-garza-agree-95-million-deal

 

It was posted a page or two back. Thanks though.

[Clem Fandango]

According to FOX Sports' Jon Paul Morosi, the Cubs are "more likely" to move Matt Garza at the trade deadline this summer than before the start of the regular season.

The Cubs clearly weren't blown away by the offers they got for Garza this winter and will simply try again in July. Garza, 28, registered a 3.32 ERA and 197/63 K/BB ratio across 198 innings last season. He's set to earn a $9.5 million salary in 2012.

 

If it helps get a better package that's fine, but I've been seriously jonesing for a Garza trade rife with top prospects coming our way since the rumors started swirling