Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davell]

I want him gone, but unless we're getting a Greinke type return or better, I see why we may wait. That said, it's risky. Obviously, an injury or him struggling early on could hurt his value even more. That said, I figure teams will find more holes in their staffs between now and opening day, so who knows? I trust our guys will figure out the right move.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

MLBTraderumors said it's more likely to happen at the mid-season deadline. So uh...take that for what it's worth.

 

I wish the Tigers would just bite already...

[davell]

According to Levine, Cubs sent 6 or 7 people down to Florida to negotiate deal with Garza before hearing. Came to agreement right before hearing was supposed to start. Said Cubs had talked to Red Sox, Rangers, and Diamondbacks about Garza. Among others. If they can't sign him longterm, he'll be dealt before next offseason, as he'd lose value with just one season left under control. Cubs think he's worth 3 or 4 top prospects.

[dew1679666265]

I want him gone, but unless we're getting a Greinke type return or better, I see why we may wait. That said, it's risky. Obviously, an injury or him struggling early on could hurt his value even more. That said, I figure teams will find more holes in their staffs between now and opening day, so who knows? I trust our guys will figure out the right move.

 

I think the "risk" here is being overblown quite a bit. I'm all for selling high on Garza, but if we were getting the offers that Theo and co found as overvaluing Garza, he'd have been traded by now. The only risk involved here is that we keep a very good - potentially elite - starting pitcher and work on an extension with him.

 

If we can get a severe overpayment for Garza, by all means deal him. But I don't want to see the braintrust settle at all.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think the "risk" here is being overblown quite a bit. I'm all for selling high on Garza, but if we were getting the offers that Theo and co found as overvaluing Garza, he'd have been traded by now. The only risk involved here is that we keep a very good - potentially elite - starting pitcher and work on an extension with him.

 

No, the risk is that he returns to pre-2011 ability levels and we waste an opportunity to sell high.

[Sammy Sofa]

You also risk not selling him as high as you could if you move him now; contract length is not uber alles. Risk is fun!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You also risk not selling him as high as you could if you move him now; contract length is not uber alles. Risk is fun!

 

Agreed. I trust Epstein and Hoyer to evaluate all of the risks properly, but if it were me, I'd be looking to deal him sooner rather than later if I possibly could.

[dew1679666265]

I think the "risk" here is being overblown quite a bit. I'm all for selling high on Garza, but if we were getting the offers that Theo and co found as overvaluing Garza, he'd have been traded by now. The only risk involved here is that we keep a very good - potentially elite - starting pitcher and work on an extension with him.

 

No, the risk is that he returns to pre-2011 ability levels and we waste an opportunity to sell high.

 

If we're selling high, then trade him. However, if we're not getting the offers Theo and co want (which we clearly aren't or he'd have already been traded) then I question whether we're actually selling high. That was my whole point - if we're simply getting what he's worth, then keep him. But if somebody is willing to overvalue him because of the big 2011 season, then you trade him.

 

If all we're getting offered is Turner, one of Crosby or Smyly, and maybe a couple lottery tickets, then I question whether we're selling high because that's not too much different than Lee/Archer/etc in terms of value - thus it isn't selling high. I don't want to trade Garza simply to trade him, I want to trade him because we're getting incredible value. If the reported offers are accurate, then we're not being offered enough for me to consider it selling high and I'm perfectly comfortable keeping him as a result.

[mookie]

I think the "risk" here is being overblown quite a bit. I'm all for selling high on Garza, but if we were getting the offers that Theo and co found as overvaluing Garza, he'd have been traded by now. The only risk involved here is that we keep a very good - potentially elite - starting pitcher and work on an extension with him.

 

No, the risk is that he returns to pre-2011 ability levels and we waste an opportunity to sell high.

 

If we're selling high, then trade him. However, if we're not getting the offers Theo and co want (which we clearly aren't or he'd have already been traded) then I question whether we're actually selling high. That was my whole point - if we're simply getting what he's worth, then keep him. But if somebody is willing to overvalue him because of the big 2011 season, then you trade him.

 

If all we're getting offered is Turner, one of Crosby or Smyly, and maybe a couple lottery tickets, then I question whether we're selling high because that's not too much different than Lee/Archer/etc in terms of value - thus it isn't selling high. I don't want to trade Garza simply to trade him, I want to trade him because we're getting incredible value. If the reported offers are accurate, then we're not being offered enough for me to consider it selling high and I'm perfectly comfortable keeping him as a result.

 

But that package is already better than what we gave up.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If all we're getting offered is Turner, one of Crosby or Smyly, and maybe a couple lottery tickets, then I question whether we're selling high because that's not too much different than Lee/Archer/etc in terms of value - thus it isn't selling high. I don't want to trade Garza simply to trade him, I want to trade him because we're getting incredible value. If the reported offers are accurate, then we're not being offered enough for me to consider it selling high and I'm perfectly comfortable keeping him as a result.

 

I think Turner-plus is a better package than the original Garza trade. I'll grant that my bias for ready-to-break-in prospects colors that, but Turner impresses me more than post-2010 Chris Archer. That said, it doesn't matter because I don't think anyone's offering Turner-plus or comparable value, now or later. But I don't blame our front office for trying.

 

You can't compare a trade for three years of cost-controlled Garza to a trade for two years of cost-controlled Garza. You don't measure whether or not you are "selling high" but what an asset was worth in the past. All that matters is what he's worth now vs. what he's worth later.

 

I just find the "keep him" scenarios to be particularly uninspiring. In my estimation, we'll be paying $22 million or so to get 7-10 WAR (probably closer to 7, imo), at least half of which will come in a season where we have virtually no chance of contention. Then at the end, we either get draft pick compensation or a market-value extension for a 30-year-old pitcher. Even a single blue-chip prospect would be preferable, if that's all we could get.

 

I trust Theo and Co. to judge the risks of trading him now vs. trading him midseason, but I just can't see any scenario where it makes sense to keep him long-term. Someone out there is going to need immediate help at starting pitcher a lot more than we do, and thus Garza will be a lot more valuable to them than he is to us. Personally, I'd like to get while the gettin's good rather than wait and risk letting him drop a 1.6-WAR deuce on his trade value.

[dew1679666265]

But that package is already better than what we gave up.

 

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer?

 

I realize Garza has one less year of team control now, but he's also coming off a significantly better year than he was when we got him. We have no motivation to trade him other than the potential return (we don't have to trade him for monetary reasons) and there's legitimate reason to believe that the improvement was sustainable (though there's also reason to believe it wasn't). If I trade him, I want a considerably better return than we gave up and I simply haven't seen that offered yet. So I'm perfectly comfortable with keeping him if that's what Theo and co feel is the best course of action.

[dew1679666265]

I think Turner-plus is a better package than the original Garza trade. I'll grant that my bias for ready-to-break-in prospects colors that, but Turner impresses me more than post-2010 Chris Archer. That said, it doesn't matter because I don't think anyone's offering Turner-plus or comparable value, now or later. But I don't blame our front office for trying.

 

I agree that I'd take Turner over Archer, but at the time I was a huge Archer fan and still like his upside. But purely from a value standpoint, the two deals are too similar for me to really be interested in dealing Garza.

 

You can't compare a trade for three years of cost-controlled Garza to a trade for two years of cost-controlled Garza. You don't measure whether or not you are "selling high" but what an asset was worth in the past. All that matters is what he's worth now vs. what he's worth later.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with you that you have to completely disregard past value in determining whether a trade is worth accepting, even if we assume that's the case then there's a perfectly reasonable argument that he could be worth more by the deadline or even after the season. If he continues last year's success this year, then we're talking about a definitely elite pitcher rather than a guy who might be elite. He'll have less time of team control, but he would also be a much more proven elite pitcher at that point.

 

The risk is he reverts back to being the good pitcher he was before we got him and so we extend him for a much cheaper cost than if he continues to be elite.

 

I just find the "keep him" scenarios to be particularly uninspiring. In my estimation, we'll be paying $22 million or so to get 7-10 WAR (probably closer to 7, imo), at least half of which will come in a season where we have virtually no chance of contention. Then at the end, we either get draft pick compensation or a market-value extension for a 30-year-old pitcher. Even a single blue-chip prospect would be preferable, if that's all we could get.

 

I trust Theo and Co. to judge the risks of trading him now vs. trading him midseason, but I just can't see any scenario where it makes sense to keep him long-term. Someone out there is going to need immediate help at starting pitcher a lot more than we do, and thus Garza will be a lot more valuable to them than he is to us. Personally, I'd like to get while the gettin's good rather than wait and risk letting him drop a 1.6-WAR deuce on his trade value.

 

If we keep Garza and he remains an elite pitcher, we have a much more realistic chance of being good by 2013 than we would without him. There's basically no chance we compete in 2012 and if we deal Garza, we can pretty much forget about 2013 unless we're ready to pony up a silly contract or two for whatever FA pitchers hit the market after this year (if any do). If we keep Garza and he repeats his 2011 season, we have a chance to keep him for less than full market value (it's too early to say for certain what he'll demand a year from now, I think) and it's a lot easier to piece together a contender for 2013. If we keep him and he reverts to pre-2011 Garza, then we have a solid mid-rotation guy and his cost plummets somewhat accordingly.

 

We're in a near-perfect situation with Garza, I think. We don't need to trade him for budgetary reasons and there are plenty of benefits to any scenario. Sure, ideally we trade him for some outrageous package, but if that's not being offered we shouldn't settle for whatever we can get.

[Guest]

But that package is already better than what we gave up.

 

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer?

 

 

Um, yes?

[ctcf]

But that package is already better than what we gave up.

 

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer?

 

 

Um, yes?

 

hahahahaha

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Turner is a much higher-rated prospect than Archer was when we dealt him.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer?

 

Who cares where they were ranked? Turner is a waaaaaaaaay better SP prospect than Archer (oh and how I'd love to land Porcello, who I'd also take over Archer). Way better. Archer was overrated as hell. Hendry went out selling high...That was his last big trade, right?

[dew1679666265]

But that package is already better than what we gave up.

 

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer?

 

 

Um, yes?

 

Turner was #21 prior to 2011, is he really going to jump that much? On Smyly/Crosby, I'm guessing they would slot into the top 100 above #97, but I'm honestly not sure where. It's partially why I left that as a question rather than a declaration - I'm a bit unsure as to exactly how the rankings will shift from one year to the next. If Turner ends up a top 10-15 prospect and Smyly/Crosby end up in the top 50 or 75, then clearly I'm wrong. But if Turner is 18-21 and Smyly/Crosby slot into the 80s or 90s, I'm not sure the overall value is considerably better.

 

As for the back-end of the deal, I'd personally prefer the lottery tickets, but there is value to definite major leaguers like Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer, especially if you believe one or more can be league average starters (like Chirinos and Guyer could be).

[dew1679666265]

Turner is a much higher-rated prospect than Archer was when we dealt him.

 

BA had Archer as the #27 prospect in the minors pre-2011 and Turner as the #21 prospect pre-2011. I admit, however, I don't know how much Turner will jump entering the 2012 season.

[Guest]

Turner is a full standard deviation better than Archer, and he's MLB ready while Archer needed AAA seasoning and had exactly one good season to his credit(half season, really). They aren't comparable at all, and Turner's readiness and ceiling are what make it so much more appealing a package.

[dew1679666265]

Who cares where they were ranked? Turner is a waaaaaaaaay better SP prospect than Archer (oh and how I'd love to land Porcello, who I'd also take over Archer). Way better. Archer was overrated as hell. Hendry went out selling high...That was his last big trade, right?

 

Turner is better, but Archer was coming off two really good seasons, cutting his walks way down (from 84 in 2008 to 64 and 65 in 2009-10) and improving his Ks (106 in 2008 to 119 in 2009 and 149 in 2010). A lot of that luster came off this past season when he reverted to his pre-Cubs walk rates, but he was a really good looking pitching prospect by the end of the 2010 season.

 

And I believe that was Hendry's final big trade.

[dew1679666265]

Turner is a full standard deviation better than Archer, and he's MLB ready while Archer needed AAA seasoning and had exactly one good season to his credit(half season, really). They aren't comparable at all, and Turner's readiness and ceiling are what make it so much more appealing a package.

 

I don't know that the ceilings are that much different between the two, it's more the likelihood of reaching that ceiling that Turner holds the advantage to Archer, I think. How would you compare Lee to Smyly/Crosby? I've admitted Turner is better than Archer was at the time, though I probably think the gap is smaller than most on here, but it's the combo of the two (Archer/Lee) that I think keeps the deals fairly comparable.

 

Maybe I'm overrating Lee because of his hot offensive start in 2011, though. Or underrating Crosby/Smyly because of lack of track record/unfamiliarity.

[davell]

The key here is not to get hung up on a publications rankings. While they're certainly fun and we all pay attention to them, Turner has legit 2 upside and a much higher floor than Archer. Archer had a pie in the sky ceiling of a 2, with a probable move to the back of the pen and a floor of someone who never makes an impact in the majors. While their rankings may be similar, they're not all that close in my eyes. Other publications had Archer much, much lower as well, in some he was closer to the 75ish range, for what it's worth. Turner is a consensus top 25 guy. Again, this shouldn't count for much, but I'm fairly positive analysts would agree Turner at this point is a much better and safer prospect than Archer was at this time last year.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Turner is a full standard deviation better than Archer, and he's MLB ready while Archer needed AAA seasoning and had exactly one good season to his credit(half season, really). They aren't comparable at all, and Turner's readiness and ceiling are what make it so much more appealing a package.

 

 

Not to mention that Archer's best came when repeating the level. Beyond the stuff I just need got the hype on the guy when it started...Weird thing is that I did correctly label him the big sleeper in the DeRosa deal. Still think he can be a very good closer...

[A New Era]

Turner, Smyly and 2 high upside A level lottery tickets would be absolutely amazing. Who knows what's being realistically offered behind closed doors. But I'd hope Theo and Jed would accept that deal.

[davell]

Hoyer said they'll look into extending Garza, as expected. I guess 5/65 is pretty fair, including this season?