Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davell]

If Garza pitches the way he's been pitching, Turner and Castellanos is NOT enough for me to deal him. Bigtime pitching is beyond scarce and it'd make much more sense for us to extend him, if that's the best we can get. We're in the driver's seat when it comes to him, period. Either knock our socks off and MAKE us trade him, or go with what you've got. or settle for whatever else may wind up on the market, that isn't nearly as good as what Garza is.

[Guest]

I'm over wanting to deal Garza. Lock him up.

[Guest]

I think Turner is okay now, no? Besides, a package of Turner and Nick Castellanos would be dreamy. And it does, from Detroit's perspective, make a ton of sense. I am not saying Garza would be able to net that package, but we will see. I would really rather trade with Texas or Toronto, but Garza will only give the team 1 and a half years of service time, so asking for their four top prospects is a little crazy town.

 

 

I'm not sure he is. And no, it wouldn't be dreamy. Not enough.

[huff]

I'm over wanting to deal Garza. Lock him up.

 

i agree. would rather build around him. Maybe try and swing an Andrew Oliver or Crosby from Detroit for Dempster and Dewitt.

 

I also think that if Bjaxx and Rizzo come up and really provide optimism offensively coupled with the lack of starting rotation depth in the minors makes us big players this offseason for starters..I think we should extend Garza then add 2 FA high end starters- why not? we will have plenty of money coming off. Plus going cheap with Bjax+Rizzo+laHair+Castillo/Clevenger+Castro leaves plenty of cash-

 

Hamels

Garza

Shields/Grienke

Smardazija

Maholm

[El Duderino]

turner and castellanos? throw in smyly and you got a deal

[SouthSideRyan]

turner and castellanos? throw in smyly and you got a deal

 

That I could get behind.

[dew1679666265]

I think we should extend Garza then add 2 FA high end starters- why not?

 

Risk. People were complaining about the risk involved with a Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish, and Prince, but there's far, far more risk involved in signing a 30 year old pitcher with a bunch of mileage than any of the players who got big contracts this offseason.

 

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to signing a couple of high-end FA starters, but I'd be much more wary about that than I was this past offseason about signing offensive stars. Especially since there's not a glut of FA starters available like people thought there would be a few months ago - now it looks like there might be, at most, 3 top end starters available (Hamels/Greinke/Anibal) and I still think Hamels will end up getting a new contract with Philly before FA. With just 2-3 on the market and the possibility/likelihood that the Yankees, Tigers, and Red Sox will all be in the market for starting pitching, we could easily be looking at ridiculous contracts for them.

[davell]

That's solid, but Smyly is overperforming right now. In the end, he's going to have to do quite a bit more to make me think he's not just their version of Travis Wood. He started out great too.

[mookie]

I figured it was implied that there would be more to the deal than Jacob and Nick, which is a nice starting point. The only problem with that starting point is Detroit's farm system which is awfully thin.

[Backtobanks]

I'm over wanting to deal Garza. Lock him up.

 

I agree. Trading Garza pushes back our chances for contending by another 2 years and I'm tired of waiting.

[mookie]

I'm over wanting to deal Garza. Lock him up.

 

I agree. Trading Garza pushes back our chances for contending by another 2 years and I'm tired of waiting.

 

Good lord. Where do you guys come up with these contending projections?

[davell]

Look, I PREFER to keep Garza at this point. But, it's certainly possible to get a major league ready starter that projects as a future 1 or 2, plus much more in return. And we would definitely have the money AND trade pieces available to add more than one bigtime pitcher as well. You could trade Garza and be the favorites in our division next year, if we want to do it that way.

[El Duderino]

I'm over wanting to deal Garza. Lock him up.

 

I agree. Trading Garza pushes back our chances for contending by another 2 years and I'm tired of waiting.

 

Good lord. Where do you guys come up with these contending projections?

 

i roll with sean casey, who says we won't be ready until '17

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Garza + Hamels (just for shiggles) >>>>>>>> Throwing in the towel for the next few years for overrated prospects. Having Garza puts us in play for guys like Hamels, Upton, and whoever else is primed in FA that happen to be of similar or better age, talent, and pedigree. He's one of the handful on the ML roster who actually make other teams take this team seriously. Build on that, it only makes sense. Just because a guy is kinda sorta close to 30...[expletive] the Cubs just don't have to operate on that level...I'd never be able to root for that team.

 

I LIKE Smyly and I'd laugh at that deal from the Tigers. Of course I do still think that Turner is overrated...so...there's the Smyly boost.

[Backtobanks]

Look, I PREFER to keep Garza at this point. But, it's certainly possible to get a major league ready starter that projects as a future 1 or 2, plus much more in return. And we would definitely have the money AND trade pieces available to add more than one bigtime pitcher as well. You could trade Garza and be the favorites in our division next year, if we want to do it that way.

 

You said it best, we're trading our top starter for the possibility of getting a starter that projects as a future #1 or #2. With all of the teams extending their players and a bunch of big market teams looking to spend money, I'm not sure how you figure we could be favorites next year.

[Guest]

Look, I PREFER to keep Garza at this point. But, it's certainly possible to get a major league ready starter that projects as a future 1 or 2, plus much more in return. And we would definitely have the money AND trade pieces available to add more than one bigtime pitcher as well. You could trade Garza and be the favorites in our division next year, if we want to do it that way.

 

Why not just skip the middle man and keep Garza? Are there really multiple guys who profile to be that superior an option?

[Derwood]

Looking back at recent prospect packages for young, top of the rotation starters makes me want to hang onto Garza.

 

Looking at the Johan Santana deal, for example, shows that Minnesota ended up far worse. Humber, Gomez and Mulvey are all off the team, and only Humber is any good of those three. Still waiting to see if Guerra pans out. Meanwhile, the Mets have had several years of Santana in his prime (though most of the rest of the team has sucked).

[davell]

Like I've been saying, it'd take a monumental package to get me to trade Garza. But, we could do it, sign a Hamels or Greinke type, trade for another front line starter and possibly have an extra solid piece or two from the Garza deal that helps us out as well. Of course, we'd also have to address hitting in order to contend, so I doubt it's likely to do all of this in one off-season. But, it is possible. It just depends quite a bit on Brett and Rizzo and where they're at in their development by the end of this season.

[C.C.]

Like I've been saying, it'd take a monumental package to get me to trade Garza. But, we could do it, sign a Hamels or Greinke type, trade for another front line starter and possibly have an extra solid piece or two from the Garza deal that helps us out as well. Of course, we'd also have to address hitting in order to contend, so I doubt it's likely to do all of this in one off-season. But, it is possible. It just depends quite a bit on Brett and Rizzo and where they're at in their development by the end of this season.

 

That's the thing you aren't going to get a monumental package for Garza. Say we do trade him. Then you are going to have spend probably more money to get someone like Hamels, then trade for another front line starter? Cut to the chase and sign the guy long term. Why not just keep your assets. Sign Garza, sign Hamels or Greinke type and be done with it. I highly doubt you are going to get a stud can't miss prospect for Garza, and that leaves another gaping hole at pitching. You know what you have with Garza, and it's all good, why trade someone like that? It's stupid.

 

It's like all our mentality of thinking has turned small market [expletive] all of a sudden.

[Guest]

I'm pretty skeptical that you can trade for a front line starter for less than the package you get for Garza. Maybe you come out ahead a lottery ticket prospect, but unless there's some big time mitigating circumstances making the trade target less valuable to begin with, you aren't netting anything significant.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah I'm confused why you'd trade Garza, and then go out and trade for a Garza type pitcher.

[KingCubsFan]

I'm pretty skeptical that you can trade for a front line starter for less than the package you get for Garza. Maybe you come out ahead a lottery ticket prospect, but unless there's some big time mitigating circumstances making the trade target less valuable to begin with, you aren't netting anything significant.

Right. It would make more sense to target a guy with a profile similar to Garza at the time he was traded (high upside, mediocre career to date).

[davell]

Like I said, while I WAS all about trading Garza, I am NOT anymore. However, some possible reasons to consider dealing him and then trading for another pitcher would be years of control and salary. It'd be a projection, in a way, because you'd have to find a guy who maybe hasn't put it all together yet and could be had for slightly less than Garza could bring back or even be part of this deal.. Maybe Garza wants a NTC that we don't want to give out? I'm spitballing obviously. And I'm also going off a scenario where Garza is pitching at midseason like he's been so far. I think he would bring back a true ransom. Perfect world is we resign him to a 6/90ish deal. But, if we landed a Henderson Alvarez, Justin Nicolino, Jake Marisnick, Aaron Sanchez type deal for him, it'd be hard as hell to pass up. And yes, that's an unrealistic package for him, but it's basically something like that, that would make me trade him.

[C.C.]

I'm pretty skeptical that you can trade for a front line starter for less than the package you get for Garza. Maybe you come out ahead a lottery ticket prospect, but unless there's some big time mitigating circumstances making the trade target less valuable to begin with, you aren't netting anything significant.

Right. It would make more sense to target a guy with a profile similar to Garza at the time he was traded (high upside, mediocre career to date).

 

Hopefully you mean Keep Garza and then trade for a guy like Garza. I don't even like that. I'd rather get another pitcher via FA. It's not like we have a over-load of prospects to trade. I'd rather draft well, keep our assets and fill in the holes via FA. That's how a big market team should act.

[C.C.]

Like I said, while I WAS all about trading Garza, I am NOT anymore. However, some possible reasons to consider dealing him and then trading for another pitcher would be years of control and salary. It'd be a projection, in a way, because you'd have to find a guy who maybe hasn't put it all together yet and could be had for slightly less than Garza could bring back or even be part of this deal.. Maybe Garza wants a NTC that we don't want to give out? I'm spitballing obviously. And I'm also going off a scenario where Garza is pitching at midseason like he's been so far. I think he would bring back a true ransom. Perfect world is we resign him to a 6/90ish deal. But, if we landed a Henderson Alvarez, Justin Nicolino, Jake Marisnick, Aaron Sanchez type deal for him, it'd be hard as hell to pass up. And yes, that's an unrealistic package for him, but it's basically something like that, that would make me trade him.

 

So basically it's not happening. Which is our point. Let's deal with the real world here. The only way you trade Garza is if he doesn't want to be here or asks for some absurd amount of money.