Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[RammyFanny]

While Garza's worth his contract by all means, keep in mind it would also likely free up 9 more million to spend elsewhere (depending on who we get back) in addition to the talent coming in.

[davell]

It's certainly possible we could go out and sign Edwin Jackson, a guy in his prime, and watch him turn into a frontline starter. And do that for close to the same money we'll have in Garza for next year. Plus, add some extremely valuable assets in the process. Which is what Theo has kind of eluded to, wanting to add assets to the organization.

[Cubs Evangelist]

I wouldn't mind a package of Garza and others for David Wright...

[Theo]

I wouldn't mind a package of Garza and others for David Wright...

What?!?

[Guest]

I wouldn't mind a package of Garza and others for David Wright...

Welcome to the forum!

 

If you had joined in 2008 and suggested that trade it would have been a great idea (if we had Garza back then). At this point, though, Wright is more expensive than what he's providing and Garza is cheaper than what he's providing.

 

No thanks.

[davell]

I have a feeling that if Hendry was still our GM, Wright would be the Peavy/Roberts trade target of this offseason.

[Cubs Evangelist]

I wouldn't mind a package of Garza and others for David Wright...

Welcome to the forum!

 

If you had joined in 2008 and suggested that trade it would have been a great idea (if we had Garza back then). At this point, though, Wright is more expensive than what he's providing and Garza is cheaper than what he's providing.

 

No thanks.

 

Thanks. The contractual situation looks ugly with Wright, I guess I just cringe at the thought of Ian Stewart as our starting 3B. Probably too much of the Hendry regime, so I must shake that and allow Theo and Jed to do their work.

[RammyFanny]

Not sure how big the KC interest actually is, but they'd be among my top choices to deal with.

 

I'd love me some Wil Myers.

[dew1679666265]

Or

 

3) you've decided to punt on 2012 (and maybe 2013) and want as much talent in return as you can get.

 

Also known as the good old burn it to the ground and start fresh approach.

 

I seriously doubt that happens after repeated (and largely ignored by the local media) mentions of parallel fronts, but it is a third possibility.

 

True. I don't see giving up on multiple seasons as a realistic scenario, though. And if it is, then trading Garza is only a smaller part of an overall larger mistake.

[dew1679666265]

While Garza's worth his contract by all means, keep in mind it would also likely free up 9 more million to spend elsewhere (depending on who we get back) in addition to the talent coming in.

 

But we'd also have a frontline starter no longer on the roster. There's a lot to be said about having an elite starter being paid far less than his production. The only way to replace Garza's production in the short term would be to shell out $50-100 million on Darvish and/or CJ Wilson.

[dew1679666265]

It's certainly possible we could go out and sign Edwin Jackson, a guy in his prime, and watch him turn into a frontline starter. And do that for close to the same money we'll have in Garza for next year. Plus, add some extremely valuable assets in the process. Which is what Theo has kind of eluded to, wanting to add assets to the organization.

 

What's the appeal in Jackson? He has a career 6.68 K/9 and 3.66 BB/9. His xFIPs have shown improvement the past couple of years (3.71 and 3.73) and he's been a 3.6-3.8 WAR pitcher the past couple of years, but he'll need to start striking guys out and walking fewer for me to see much more upside.

 

I think he'll get well overpaid for what his production is likely to be. I'm not at all interested in him.

[davell]

I'm not sure why his K rate is so low. He's got good stuff. I guess I'm interested in hin because of the contract Heyman mentioned with him, which was 3/36. If it takes a 4th or 5th year, which I've even speculated on, my interest goes down. I don't view him as a 1 or 2, by the way. I think of him as a 3, but still young enough to become more. I guess I figure adding him, losing Garza, adding 2 top 100 prospects, and still having the ammo to go out and add a 1 or 2, maybe both, if we make a trade, would be OK with me. As long as one of the supposed top 100 prospects is a pitcher with 1 or 2 potential.

[Tracer Bullet]

Trading Garza would put my Jebadore love to the test pretty early.

[Guest]

Trading Garza would put my Jebadore love to the test pretty early.

I think I'd wait to see what they got in return. If they think the Cubs are a mediocre team in the short term and trading Garza helps them long term I could get behind it.

 

I don't think they will get the value they need for him though.

[MSG T]

Trading Garza would put my Jebadore love to the test pretty early.

 

 

I don't have any qualms about Jed/Theo trading Garza. They would force a team to overpay or at minimum give them exactly what they want in return, which would undoubtedly be something really good.

 

 

Basically, no offense CE, but they wouldn't trade him for Wright. They'd either rob a team blind or not trade him.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not sure why his K rate is so low. He's got good stuff. I guess I'm interested in hin because of the contract Heyman mentioned with him, which was 3/36. If it takes a 4th or 5th year, which I've even speculated on, my interest goes down. I don't view him as a 1 or 2, by the way. I think of him as a 3, but still young enough to become more. I guess I figure adding him, losing Garza, adding 2 top 100 prospects, and still having the ammo to go out and add a 1 or 2, maybe both, if we make a trade, would be OK with me. As long as one of the supposed top 100 prospects is a pitcher with 1 or 2 potential.

 

If he could be had at 3/36, I'd be fine with him. But given the poor high-end talent on the market after Wilson and maybe Darvish, I tend to think that's on the lower end of what he'll get.

[Exile on Waveland]

It's certainly possible we could go out and sign Edwin Jackson, a guy in his prime, and watch him turn into a frontline starter. And do that for close to the same money we'll have in Garza for next year. Plus, add some extremely valuable assets in the process. Which is what Theo has kind of eluded to, wanting to add assets to the organization.

 

What's the appeal in Jackson? He has a career 6.68 K/9 and 3.66 BB/9. His xFIPs have shown improvement the past couple of years (3.71 and 3.73) and he's been a 3.6-3.8 WAR pitcher the past couple of years, but he'll need to start striking guys out and walking fewer for me to see much more upside.

 

I think he'll get well overpaid for what his production is likely to be. I'm not at all interested in him.

 

Talent. The same reason people were in favor of the Garza deal last year. I wouldn't break the bank, but he still has a lot of potential.

[dew1679666265]

Talent. The same reason people were in favor of the Garza deal last year. I wouldn't break the bank, but he still has a lot of potential.

 

The problem is, Garza was 27 and pitching in the AL East at the time of the trade and Jackson will turn 29 next year and has been underwhelming all over the place (AL East, AL Central, NL Central). Garza also had somewhat better K/9, BB/9, and WHIP numbers.

 

I wasn't the biggest fan of giving up as much as we did for a gamble like Garza, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of giving up a bunch of money on an older, worse gamble like Jackson.

[Exile on Waveland]

Talent. The same reason people were in favor of the Garza deal last year. I wouldn't break the bank, but he still has a lot of potential.

 

The problem is, Garza was 27 and pitching in the AL East at the time of the trade and Jackson will turn 29 next year and has been underwhelming all over the place (AL East, AL Central, NL Central). Garza also had somewhat better K/9, BB/9, and WHIP numbers.

 

I wasn't the biggest fan of giving up as much as we did for a gamble like Garza, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of giving up a bunch of money on an older, worse gamble like Jackson.

 

Jackson would be a bigger gamble than Garza, certainly. I have a lot less faith that he fully figures things out. However, the last four years he's had WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1. He has the talent to at least sustain that, and possibly improve it.

 

People are interested in Ian Stewart for third-base despite him being one of the worst hitters in the majors last year and never worth more than 1.3 wins. The reason is because he's talented, may/will come cheap, and the Cubs have nothing at third base. Jackson is talented and I consider the rotation a bigger need than third base. Jackson, however, won't come cheap and I wouldn't bid too awful high. But I'd feel a lot better about the rotation if he was included.

[Guest]

I'd like the offseason's acquisitions to have 2 out of 3 things: upside, consistency, and affordability. Guys like Stewart hit on 2 of those, Jackson only offers upside.

[dew1679666265]

Jackson would be a bigger gamble than Garza, certainly. I have a lot less faith that he fully figures things out. However, the last four years he's had WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1. He has the talent to at least sustain that, and possibly improve it.

 

Entering his age 29 season, I have strong doubts that he will improve on those numbers. The further he gets into his prime years, the less likely that he'll become a consistently very good pitcher. If he continues with the wild inconsistency his WAR numbers show, he's not going to be worth the contract he's likely to receive.

 

People are interested in Ian Stewart for third-base despite him being one of the worst hitters in the majors last year and never worth more than 1.3 wins. The reason is because he's talented, may/will come cheap, and the Cubs have nothing at third base. Jackson is talented and I consider the rotation a bigger need than third base. Jackson, however, won't come cheap and I wouldn't bid too awful high. But I'd feel a lot better about the rotation if he was included.

 

Most of the people who have shown interest in Stewart are only that way if he comes extremely cheap. That's the difference between Jackson and Stewart - one's a very high priced gamble, while the other is likely to be a very cheap gamble. I'm open to doing the latter, but not the former.

 

As for the rotation, if we're going to pour a ton of money into one player, I want him to be a legitimate star (Wilson/Darvish). Otherwise, I'd rather go after potential high/semi-high upside guys at a lower cost (Wei-Yin Chen, for instance).

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd like the offseason's acquisitions to have 2 out of 3 things: upside, consistency, and affordability. Guys like Stewart hit on 2 of those, Jackson only offers upside.

 

I think you need to explain "affordability" better than you have there. Because I want, and I think you do too, players that are far less "affordable" than Jackson. I'm assuming you mean better value.

[Exile on Waveland]

Entering his age 29 season, I have strong doubts that he will improve on those numbers. The further he gets into his prime years, the less likely that he'll become a consistently very good pitcher. If he continues with the wild inconsistency his WAR numbers show, he's not going to be worth the contract he's likely to receive.

 

Jackson was only 27 years old this past season; so he's entering his age-28 season (he will only turn 29 in September). Regardless, 29 is not that old for a pitcher. (Which you surely agree considering you're the biggest advocate of signing a pitcher entering his age-31 season; whether that pitcher is better or not.)

 

As for your second paragraph, I think I covered the fact that Jackson may/will not be a good value for the contract he might receive, unlike Stewart.

[Guest]

I'd like the offseason's acquisitions to have 2 out of 3 things: upside, consistency, and affordability. Guys like Stewart hit on 2 of those, Jackson only offers upside.

 

I think you need to explain "affordability" better than you have there. Because I want, and I think you do too, players that are far less "affordable" than Jackson. I'm assuming you mean better value.

 

Well, that's why I said two out of three. I want Albert Pujols. He won't be affordable, but he offers tremendous upside(maybe upside isn't the perfect the word, but I was trying to make a simplistic example) and consistency. The paradigm doesn't really fit the internationals, but for most other acquisitions it's an okay lens to view potential targets.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd like the offseason's acquisitions to have 2 out of 3 things: upside, consistency, and affordability. Guys like Stewart hit on 2 of those, Jackson only offers upside.

 

I think you need to explain "affordability" better than you have there. Because I want, and I think you do too, players that are far less "affordable" than Jackson. I'm assuming you mean better value.

 

Well, that's why I said two out of three. I want Albert Pujols. He won't be affordable, but he offers tremendous upside(maybe upside isn't the perfect the word, but I was trying to make a simplistic example) and consistency. The paradigm doesn't really fit the internationals, but for most other acquisitions it's an okay lens to view potential targets.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think there is a better-than-good chance Jackson does not end up being "affordable." That said, a team as rotation-starved as the Cubs, should be interested in him until he becomes really unaffordable.