Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davell]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

[C.C.]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

 

There's too many if's in there. Esp for next year. Relying on two unproven ML talents is a little much for next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

 

If all of that happened we'd be the favorites in the division.

[Sammy Sofa]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

 

There's too many if's in there.

 

Not really. Look at it this way: if most of that happened and they were competitive, would you sit back and say "man, what an improbable and fluke-y season!"?

[jersey cubs fan]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

 

There's too many if's in there.

 

Not really. Look at it this way: if most of that happened and they were competitive, would you sit back and say "man, what an improbable and fluke-y season!"?

 

I don't see them adding Hamels and a solid bat plus keeping Dempster.

 

But if they did all that they should be competitive.

 

There are a lot of ifs though. Shark is still a work in progress, Brett and Rizzo are no sure things to be solid major leaguers next year. Plus getting the opportunity to sign the biggest free agent of the year would be lucky.

[Sammy Sofa]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

[C.C.]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

Not really? It depends how big are the "ifs". Having two guys with little to no ML experience and expect them to do well their first year out are pretty big "ifs". As is Cole Hamels for that matter.

Edited May 2, 2012 by C.C.

[C.C.]

If we keep Garza, Shark progresses enough to where he's a legit midrotation guy, we could add a Hamels and maybe keep Dempster on a very team friendly deal, we'd have an excellent rotation. We'd have to see Brett and Rizzo be solid major leaguers, Castro taking another step towards superstardom and add another solid bat somehow, but that team could contend next season most likely.

 

There's too many if's in there.

 

Not really. Look at it this way: if most of that happened and they were competitive, would you sit back and say "man, what an improbable and fluke-y season!"?

 

No, I'd say kick-ass! But let's get realistic here, what's the chances of all of that even happening? I'd say pretty damn slim. It's fun to dream tho.

[C.C.]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

You wouldn't be surprised if we get Hamels, Jackson and Rizzo are solid MLB players in their first year, shark progresses, and whatever else he had in there? Damn, gimme some of that optimism!

[jersey cubs fan]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

Not unusual, no, but the events are about players continuing to improve and not getting injured, plus signing a huge free agent. It is kind of rare to have all the guys you need to keep getting better and stay healthy, actually get better and stay healthy. What is probably more likely is one or more of those guys will get hurt and/or take a step back.

[Sammy Sofa]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

You wouldn't be surprised if we get Hamels, Jackson and Rizzo are solid MLB players in their first year, shark progresses, and whatever else he had in there? Damn, gimme some of that optimism!

 

Signing a FA? Not unusual. Two highly touted prospects being at least serviceable their rookie seasons? Not unusual. A talented pitcher maintaining or improving on the success of what (ideally) is a breakout year? Not unusual.

[Sammy Sofa]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

Not unusual, no, but the events are about players continuing to improve and not getting injured, plus signing a huge free agent. It is kind of rare to have all the guys you need to keep getting better and stay healthy, actually get better and stay healthy. What is probably more likely is one or more of those guys will get hurt and/or take a step back.

 

Yes, that's baseball; which is why I said the bold part. And really, the only players already on the team he brought up as improving and not getting hurt were Castro and Shark. That's hardly unreasonable.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[sneakypower]

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).

the Mets spent $82.5m for the first 4 seasons of Santana, only getting 10.9 WAR from it, and still have 3/$74.5m remaining

 

i'm not sure that's a real great example for not trading a pitcher; the Mets were the real losers in that trade

 

(i still don't want to trade Garza, unless something insane like Archie Bradley/Skaggs gets sent our way)

[jersey cubs fan]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

Not unusual, no, but the events are about players continuing to improve and not getting injured, plus signing a huge free agent. It is kind of rare to have all the guys you need to keep getting better and stay healthy, actually get better and stay healthy. What is probably more likely is one or more of those guys will get hurt and/or take a step back.

 

Yes, that's baseball; which is why I said the bold part. And really, the only players already on the team he brought up as improving and not getting hurt were Castro and Shark. That's hardly unreasonable.

 

But you not being surprised that the things happened does not negate the fact that there are a lot of ifs. The statement wasn't about a lot of far off unrealistic hopes, but rather, a lot of ifs. And there were a lot of ifs listed. Ifs are tough to count on in baseball.

 

What's with the pointless distinction about the guys already on the team? He also brought up both Rizzo and Jackson arriving and producing in year 1.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's a redundant worry; basically all you're ever looking at is a bunch of "if's."

 

God, this is a stupid tangent.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

That situation has plenty of ifs but I just don't think it's crazy to see that happen. It was summarized pretty well in the earlier "not unusual" post I should have quoted.

[CubColtPacer]

But again, we're hardly talking about a series of unusual circumstances. "Too many if's" is a largely meaningless statement in regards to a game with so few sure things. Basically I wouldn't be surprised either way.

 

You wouldn't be surprised if we get Hamels, Jackson and Rizzo are solid MLB players in their first year, shark progresses, and whatever else he had in there? Damn, gimme some of that optimism!

 

Signing a FA? Not unusual. Two highly touted prospects being at least serviceable their rookie seasons? Not unusual. A talented pitcher maintaining or improving on the success of what (ideally) is a breakout year? Not unusual.

 

Yes, but even if each of them have a 75% chance of happening, the odds of all of them happening are not good. So if you need all or nearly of them to happen to reach the goal, there is a problem. That's all too many ifs means in that context, which is hardly a meaningless statement.

 

And of course some of those are not a 75% chance (signing Hamels for example is nowhere near that).

[Sammy Sofa]

There's a bunch of things that could happen for the Cubs to be competitive next year, so trying to pin it down to a single scenario as THE way is pretty much fruitless.

[C.C.]

There's a bunch of things that could happen for the Cubs to be competitive next year, so trying to pin it down to a single scenario as THE way is pretty much fruitless.

 

No one is pinning it down to that one scenario. The discussion was that certain scenario had to many "ifs" and wasn't really that realistic and you said it was.

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course it's realistic that a bunch of things that could easily happen to make the Cubs competitive next season happen.

[C.C.]

You are like nails on a freaking chalk board. It's like dealing with a little kid that is always trying to curtail the subject matter to prove he's right.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, we're not talking about a bunch of bizarre things happening here; if it doesn't come together, eh, not surprising. If, say, the scenario we're talking about happens, also not surprising.

 

Oh, my bad; I'll just step back and let you get back to your oh-so-enjoyable percentage predictions as to how likely it is they're going to fail at everything.

[C.C.]

Well at least you got yourself covered either way.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's nothing to "cover," you loon.

[Guest]

The way I read it was more a case of conditional probability: GIVEN those things happen, the Cubs should be competitive. That exact scenario coming to fruition is unlikely, as CCP rightly points out the math involved. But what N&G is arguing is different. What he's saying is that it would not be at all surprising to find ourselves in a very good competitive position by the end of next year and that the original scenario is simply one way of getting there where there isn't a single element in there that would be surprising.