Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Yeah, for 6/20, I'd take Hamels without thinking twice.

[Backtobanks]

Yeah, for 6/20, I'd take Hamels without thinking twice.

 

Hamels is probably in the $150 million over 7 year range.

[rawaction]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Know I'm late, but I thought I was the only one feeling this way. I can't imagine being happy either with any non Blue Jays or Diamondbacks trade, but seriously someone young in their current rotations would have to be included along with a top 3 prospect and a 2nd top 10 guy.

[biittner77]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Know I'm late, but I thought I was the only one feeling this way. I can't imagine being happy either with any non Blue Jays or Diamondbacks trade, but seriously someone young in their current rotations would have to be included along with a top 3 prospect and a 2nd top 10 guy.

 

If the Cubs extend Garza before the deadline, doesn't that increase Dempster's value? That would take maybe the best available pitcher off the market (except Hamels if he becomes available). Who's available that's having a better season so far than Dempster?

[Little Slide Rooter]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Know I'm late, but I thought I was the only one feeling this way. I can't imagine being happy either with any non Blue Jays or Diamondbacks trade, but seriously someone young in their current rotations would have to be included along with a top 3 prospect and a 2nd top 10 guy.

 

If the Cubs extend Garza before the deadline, doesn't that increase Dempster's value? That would take maybe the best available pitcher off the market (except Hamels if he becomes available). Who's available that's having a better season so far than Dempster?

 

IMHO, theres a big difference between them. Garza, Hamels, Greinke (5-7 years each?), and Marcum, McCarthy and Sanchez (3-4 years each?) which will likely end up with should all have effects on each others prices. However, Dempster is going to be 36 next season, so he'll likely appeal to teams looking for a lesser commitmant in terms of years. Big Z and Peavy could also end up with a decent 3 year deal the way they've pitched so far and Z's lack of incidents and Peavy's lack of injury. So far.

[jersey cubs fan]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Know I'm late, but I thought I was the only one feeling this way. I can't imagine being happy either with any non Blue Jays or Diamondbacks trade, but seriously someone young in their current rotations would have to be included along with a top 3 prospect and a 2nd top 10 guy.

 

I was sensing that was the prevailing opinion on the board. I wouldn't want a deal to just be guys in A ball or lower, but I'm still very open to a trade.

 

Also, what exactly are the "consequences of trading him and losing Dempster"? That the team would suck?

[rawaction]

At this point, I'm going to be pretty upset if Garza is traded. Unless he's asking for obscene money and you will for sure lose him, there's no reason to. And by obscene money, I don't mean "this FA got a couple mil more for a couple years than he should", I mean "Are you sure there's that many zeroes?" obscene. And if it comes to that and he has to be traded, there absolutely has to be major league or major league ready talent coming back. Trading Garza for a collection of players below AA, regardless of their prospect status, is simply unacceptable considering the consequences of trading him and (likely) losing Dempster next year.

 

Know I'm late, but I thought I was the only one feeling this way. I can't imagine being happy either with any non Blue Jays or Diamondbacks trade, but seriously someone young in their current rotations would have to be included along with a top 3 prospect and a 2nd top 10 guy.

 

I was sensing that was the prevailing opinion on the board. I wouldn't want a deal to just be guys in A ball or lower, but I'm still very open to a trade.

 

Also, what exactly are the "consequences of trading him and losing Dempster"? That the team would suck?

 

No, the team already sucks. They would suck A LOT without both of them, possibly to historical levels.

[Guest]

Also, what exactly are the "consequences of trading him and losing Dempster"? That the team would suck?

 

Yeah, losing 9 WAR or so in 2 SP with no MLB return from trading/losing them would be very difficult to handle and still improve the MLB roster going forward.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, the team already sucks. They would suck A LOT without both of them, possibly to historical levels.

 

They already suck a lot. And that assumes they don't add anything else.

[sneakypower]

fWAR since 09:

Greinke (28): 9.3, 5.1, 3.9, 2.8 (21.2 total) - 106 starts

Hamels (28): 3.6, 3.7, 4.9, 1.7 (13.9) - 107 starts

E. Jackson (28): 3.6, 3.6, 3.8, 1.4 (12.6) - 107 starts

Anibal (28): 0.8, 4.4, 3.8, 2.0 (11.0) - 91 starts

Garza (28): 3.1, 1.6, 5.0, 0.7 (10.4) - 105 starts

Peavy (31): 2.5, 1.8, 2.9, 2.0 (9.2) - 62 starts

Marcum (30): inj, 3.6, 2.7, 1.2 (7.5) - 75 starts

McCarthy (28): 1.4, inj, 4.7, 1.1 (7.2) - 52 starts

 

(just for the hell of it...)

Liriano (28): 1.1, 6.0, 1.0, 0.2 (8.4) - 87 starts

Zambrano (31): 3.6, 2.3, 0.9, 1.2 (8.0) - 83 starts

 

if we're talking about giving Garza 5/100, i'd much rather ship him off and sign most any of these guys above for roughly the same money or less, AND have pieces like Aaron Sanchez & Marisnick / Turner & Castellanos / Banuelos & Mason Williams / Barnes & Jackie Bradley as well

[Guest]

Using '09 as a starting point kinda obscures the point, no? I think the basis for most people wanting to give Garza a certain contract is based on the assumption that he's made some improvements since the trade(pitch mix, age-based progression, league change, etc). Not that I'm necessarily opposed to any of the guys on that list, but pulling in a bunch of 3 win 2009 seasons that makes a more favorable comparison to Garza over that timeframe doesn't do much to sway me.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also, what exactly are the "consequences of trading him and losing Dempster"? That the team would suck?

 

Yeah, losing 9 WAR or so in 2 SP with no MLB return from trading/losing them would be very difficult to handle and still improve the MLB roster going forward.

 

It would be difficult to handle in the immediate short term but how would it harm their ability to improve the MLB roster going forward?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What are you guys so worried about? I trust Epstein and Co. not to tank an entire season or two. Every chance to win is sacred.

[Guest]

Also, what exactly are the "consequences of trading him and losing Dempster"? That the team would suck?

 

Yeah, losing 9 WAR or so in 2 SP with no MLB return from trading/losing them would be very difficult to handle and still improve the MLB roster going forward.

 

It would be difficult to handle in the immediate short term but how would it harm their ability to improve the MLB roster going forward?

 

Better phrasing would be that it would hurt their ability to improve their MLB roster to a point of competitiveness. You'd still have the resources from losing/trading them, but without any of it being realized with MLB talent, it would make it more difficult to improve that much over the course of an offseason.

[jersey cubs fan]

Using '09 as a starting point kinda obscures the point, no? I think the basis for most people wanting to give Garza a certain contract is based on the assumption that he's made some improvements since the trade(pitch mix, age-based progression, league change, etc). Not that I'm necessarily opposed to any of the guys on that list, but pulling in a bunch of 3 win 2009 seasons that makes a more favorable comparison to Garza over that timeframe doesn't do much to sway me.

 

I think the assumption that Garza is now entirely what he was in 2011 and not what he was prior to the trade (or this year for that matter) is too big of an assumption to make when it comes to handing out the contract he'd get under the terms of that assumption.

[SouthSideRyan]

What are you guys so worried about? I trust Epstein and Co. not to tank an entire season or two. Every chance to win is sacred.

 

Shut up Kyle

[sneakypower]

Using '09 as a starting point kinda obscures the point, no? I think the basis for most people wanting to give Garza a certain contract is based on the assumption that he's made some improvements since the trade(pitch mix, age-based progression, league change, etc). Not that I'm necessarily opposed to any of the guys on that list, but pulling in a bunch of 3 win 2009 seasons that makes a more favorable comparison to Garza over that timeframe doesn't do much to sway me.

he's barely on pace for a 2-win season; look at his career FIPs and tell me which year stands out: 4.42, 4.14, 4.42, 2.95, 4.09

 

and he provides negative value with his fielding, and his bat; Marcum, for example, was worth nearly a win more so far the last 2 seasons with his bat

 

too many question marks and other comparable alternatives to give him $100M, imo

[jersey cubs fan]

Better phrasing would be that it would hurt their ability to improve their MLB roster to a point of competitiveness. You'd still have the resources from losing/trading them, but without any of it being realized with MLB talent, it would make it more difficult to improve that much over the course of an offseason.

 

It would hurt their ability to compete in 2013, however, I don't think the goal has been to be competitive as soon as possible, but rather when they get competitive, to be as good as they possibly can.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What are you guys so worried about? I trust Epstein and Co. not to tank an entire season or two. Every chance to win is sacred.

 

Not sure if this statement is sincere or facetious, but I think it's true. This season wasn't supposed to be as lost as it has been this early on. Nobody can blame Epstein, Hoyer, or even Hendry for the way that the season has panned out thus far. The bullpen issues, the 12 game L streak, the lack of run support for beyond quality starts. As long as they get decent trade returns in the next 6 weeks or so and are willing to spend a bit of money, the 2013 team should be a contender in this division, and work it's way up from there in the next 2-3 years.

[jersey cubs fan]

Nobody can blame Epstein, Hoyer, or even Hendry for the way that the season has panned out thus far. The bullpen issues, the 12 game L streak, the lack of run support for beyond quality starts.

 

A bad team played poorly and nobody can be blamed for that fact?

[abuck1220]

yeah, you can't blame the guys that put this terrible team together for the team being terrible. totally came out of nowhere.

[rawaction]

What are you guys so worried about? I trust Epstein and Co. not to tank an entire season or two. Every chance to win is sacred.

 

I trust them too. But the whole "bird in the hand" thing. Getting rid of Dempster and Garza and not getting some legit ML ready talent back is getting rid of 2 huge birds. Even if you get ML ready talent, it won't be proven. A team with Jeff Szmardizja as the best pitcher isn't likely to be very good.

 

Sure you'd like to think they could sign Sanchez, Hamels, Greinke and a big time bat, but that's clearly not anywhere near being a given.

[Guest]

Using '09 as a starting point kinda obscures the point, no? I think the basis for most people wanting to give Garza a certain contract is based on the assumption that he's made some improvements since the trade(pitch mix, age-based progression, league change, etc). Not that I'm necessarily opposed to any of the guys on that list, but pulling in a bunch of 3 win 2009 seasons that makes a more favorable comparison to Garza over that timeframe doesn't do much to sway me.

he's barely on pace for a 2-win season; look at his career FIPs and tell me which year stands out: 4.42, 4.14, 4.42, 2.95, 4.09

 

and he provides negative value with his fielding, and his bat; Marcum, for example, was worth nearly a win more so far the last 2 seasons with his bat

 

too many question marks and other comparable alternatives to give him $100M, imo

 

Would you take the over or under on 3 wins for him this year? I'd be careful about trending him for the season after he's had 2 of his worst starts of the year.

 

Anyway, it looks like we're talking about different points. I don't want to write off the possibility that Garza's 2011 was an outlier, but rather point out that if you believe in his 2011 then he's a standard deviation above the Anibal Sanchezes and Edwin Jacksons of the world.

[pitchcs]

If they were to trade Dempster & Garza (which I am perfectly fine with BTW.....actually, I'd prefer it) they would certainly be ready to make a signing or two or trade in the offseason for a ML starter.

 

 

Garza for a huge contract here, no thanks. I like him but just think we're probably better off moving in another direction right now.

 

1) Hamels

2) Sammyzija

3) Maholm

4) Someone?

5) Wood

 

Not great, but would cost about the same as Garza/Dempster, be close to as good and have some AA or better prospects in the wings.

Edited June 7, 2012 by pitchcs

[Backtobanks]

yeah, you can't blame the guys that put this terrible team together for the team being terrible. totally came out of nowhere.

 

That Theo Koolaide is pretty potent stuff.