Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Tryptamine]

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I'd much like trading Garza for a couple of, at best, mid-rotation arms. In dealing Garza, we'd likely either push our contention clock back an extra year or two or we'd have to splurge on a ridiculous contract to Hamels. If we can't get some legitimate upside in a Garza deal, I'd much rather just keep him.

 

I'd prefer keep him as well, but I can't see paying him the 18M or more he'd be seeking on an annual basis. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable going anymore than 15M annually.

[gocubs2118]

I'd much rather keep him as well but I don't want to give him a Matt Cain type contract. I'd be hesitant to give him anything more than 18-20M per year. I like Garza but not at that kind of money.

[dew1679666265]

I'd prefer keep him as well, but I can't see paying him the 18M or more he'd be seeking on an annual basis. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable going anymore than 15M annually.

 

At the moment I'm not sure I'm thrilled with keeping him either, but we do have another year of arbitration for him. If all we get is a couple mid-rotation arms in offers for him, I'd rather keep him, see how he rebounds over the next calendar year and reassess next year. Chances are his value won't drop much from its current point (barring him getting worse) and it very well may rise substantially if we can get him back into the 2011 area.

 

I'd also much rather have Garza at 5/90-100 than have to potentially pay Hamels something like 8/184 ($23 AAV). And if we want to seriously compete inside of 4-5 years, we'd probably have to do the latter if we deal Garza.

[toonsterwu]

We're sort of stuck in no man's land with Garza. Yes, there's one more year, but his peripherals aren't bad this year (K rate is a bit down ... looking at the numbers, he is more fastball prone, although not like his Tampa Bay days), and the front office is probably basing it's demands off of positive statistics, and the fact that he has AL East experience, which is understandable. That said, it's somewhat hard to imagine him having, hypothetically, noticeably better value a year from now unless he surprises and takes it to a notch above last year's, because a minimal rise would be balanced by less control (all this is said while noting the fact that ... all it takes is one team to throw any discussions out of whack).

 

The team's timeline also doesn't fit Garza all that well for a contract extension,. Even taking a positive case scenario where we are competitive by 2014, and pushing for a playoff berth by 2015, Garza would be 31/32 when we are pushing, at the end of his prime, and likely in the midst of some expensive years on a contract extension. Add in that the team's lack of upper level pitching talent doesn't really mesh all that well with the current ready, or close to ready crop of positional guys, and the reinforcements/reinforcement potential isn't there unless we strip the lower levels. Factor in that some of the veterans on the squad will likely be stripped for more pieces (Marmol's rebound could be a nice thing ... if he keeps this up, maybe a team gives up something of note in late July), and the timing just doesn't work all that well for us in a Garza scenario.

 

Ideally, we'd get one upper level pitching prospect with legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential ... but who is that guy? I can't think of many guys being mentioned amongst teams legitimately targeting pitching (that is being speculated upon as of now) who would be a legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential option that doesn't have some significant questions about them. So ... do you go for upside further away, or do you go for slightly lower upside that's close to ready/ready right now? A legit "2" type, even a "2/3" type in the upper levels of the minors can often carry high value in trade talks. I think it'd be tough to simply take two high upside A ball arms in a deal like this - the risk is too great that you probably want to sacrifice some ceiling to make sure the guys you get back could potentially provide something.

 

The easy answer is that perhaps you focus on an upper level guy with a good ceiling, solid mid-rotation ceiling or a bit better and target a high upside arm in the lower levels as the 2nd piece. Perhaps instead of targeting 2 of the young A ball arms for the Blue Jays (just offering a hypothetical), you target someone like John Stilson, if he's pitching well in AA, someone who offers some relative safety as a potential pen option but still has a mid-rotation ceiling, to go with one of the young guns (and more).

[davell]

I've kind of had it in my head that we'd get back a guy that immediately slots into the rotation, along with one TOR potential type. My guesses were Hutchison/Syndergaard from Toronto(unsure if Hutchison is healthy before deadline), Eovaldi/Lee from the Dodgers, Delgado/Teheran(too much probably) from the Braves, Odorizzi/Ventura from the Royals, and maybe Barnes/Owens from the Red Sox, even though there's not a guy you slot immediately back into Garza's spot. Porcello and Turner work from Detroit too.

[SouthSideRyan]

We'd probably wind up non-tending Porcello in a year.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

The Braves signed Ben Sheets and seriously plan to start him within the next 2 weeks. Against major league hitters.

 

We've read about the Braves' interest in Garza and/or Dempster before. We really need to turn the screws on those guys and see if we can coax a few horses from their stable of SP prospects. I'm optimistic that Jed/Theo will be able to use the Phillies' ridiculous (but not unsupported) asking price for Hamels as a means of persuading teams that Garza is a "better" deal; i.e., why give the Phillies 4-5 of your best prospects for Hamels when you can just give us 2-3 really good prospects and get a guy who's cheaper and not that much worse.

[dew1679666265]

We're sort of stuck in no man's land with Garza. Yes, there's one more year, but his peripherals aren't bad this year (K rate is a bit down ... looking at the numbers, he is more fastball prone, although not like his Tampa Bay days), and the front office is probably basing it's demands off of positive statistics, and the fact that he has AL East experience, which is understandable. That said, it's somewhat hard to imagine him having, hypothetically, noticeably better value a year from now unless he surprises and takes it to a notch above last year's, because a minimal rise would be balanced by less control (all this is said while noting the fact that ... all it takes is one team to throw any discussions out of whack).

 

The team's timeline also doesn't fit Garza all that well for a contract extension,. Even taking a positive case scenario where we are competitive by 2014, and pushing for a playoff berth by 2015, Garza would be 31/32 when we are pushing, at the end of his prime, and likely in the midst of some expensive years on a contract extension. Add in that the team's lack of upper level pitching talent doesn't really mesh all that well with the current ready, or close to ready crop of positional guys, and the reinforcements/reinforcement potential isn't there unless we strip the lower levels. Factor in that some of the veterans on the squad will likely be stripped for more pieces (Marmol's rebound could be a nice thing ... if he keeps this up, maybe a team gives up something of note in late July), and the timing just doesn't work all that well for us in a Garza scenario.

 

Ideally, we'd get one upper level pitching prospect with legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential ... but who is that guy? I can't think of many guys being mentioned amongst teams legitimately targeting pitching (that is being speculated upon as of now) who would be a legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential option that doesn't have some significant questions about them. So ... do you go for upside further away, or do you go for slightly lower upside that's close to ready/ready right now? A legit "2" type, even a "2/3" type in the upper levels of the minors can often carry high value in trade talks. I think it'd be tough to simply take two high upside A ball arms in a deal like this - the risk is too great that you probably want to sacrifice some ceiling to make sure the guys you get back could potentially provide something.

 

The easy answer is that perhaps you focus on an upper level guy with a good ceiling, solid mid-rotation ceiling or a bit better and target a high upside arm in the lower levels as the 2nd piece. Perhaps instead of targeting 2 of the young A ball arms for the Blue Jays (just offering a hypothetical), you target someone like John Stilson, if he's pitching well in AA, someone who offers some relative safety as a potential pen option but still has a mid-rotation ceiling, to go with one of the young guns (and more).

 

Very good post, but I do have a question. Why is Garza being 31/32 when we get really good a bad thing? Would it be ideal for him to be 26/27? Sure, but he could well still be a very good pitcher at that point and hopefully we'd have somebody (maybe a Blackburn or Underwood) close to taking his place at the top of the rotation by then.

 

I wouldn't go out and acquire Garza at 31/32, but since he's on the team now I wouldn't trade him for less than very good value just because he won't be at the ideal age when we decide to start trying again.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Any chance that Detroit would give up Scherzer and 2 of Turner/Oliver/Crosby/Smyly for Garza&Dempster, and whatever they want from the clearence bin?

[abohnhoff]

Any chance that Detroit would give up Scherzer and 2 of Turner/Oliver/Crosby/Smyly for Garza&Dempster, and whatever they want from the clearence bin?

 

No.

[abuck1220]

Any chance that Detroit would give up Scherzer and 2 of Turner/Oliver/Crosby/Smyly for Garza&Dempster, and whatever they want from the clearence bin?

 

OMG i swear if you post one more time about trying to entice teams with reed johnson garbage or whatever i'm going to burn down the internet.

[Post Count Padder]

Any chance that Detroit would give up Scherzer and 2 of Turner/Oliver/Crosby/Smyly for Garza&Dempster, and whatever they want from the clearence bin?

 

OMG i swear if you post one more time about trying to entice teams with reed johnson garbage or whatever i'm going to burn down the internet.

But he's so darn gritty, that has to count for two players.

[abuck1220]

oh great now you're weighing in.

[Post Count Padder]

oh great now you're weighing in.

All I'm saying is Casey Coleman and Blake DeWitt are so valuable they're invaluable. Teams should be glad we're willing to include them as throw-ins. Reed is one of the league leaders in WAG (wins above grit). FACT.

[Sammy Sofa]

oh great now you're weighing in.

All I'm saying is Casey Coleman and Blake DeWitt are so valuable they're invaluable. Teams should be glad we're willing to include them as throw-ins. Reed is one of the league leaders in WAG (wins above grit). FACT.

 

Ditto.

[toonsterwu]

We're sort of stuck in no man's land with Garza. Yes, there's one more year, but his peripherals aren't bad this year (K rate is a bit down ... looking at the numbers, he is more fastball prone, although not like his Tampa Bay days), and the front office is probably basing it's demands off of positive statistics, and the fact that he has AL East experience, which is understandable. That said, it's somewhat hard to imagine him having, hypothetically, noticeably better value a year from now unless he surprises and takes it to a notch above last year's, because a minimal rise would be balanced by less control (all this is said while noting the fact that ... all it takes is one team to throw any discussions out of whack).

 

The team's timeline also doesn't fit Garza all that well for a contract extension,. Even taking a positive case scenario where we are competitive by 2014, and pushing for a playoff berth by 2015, Garza would be 31/32 when we are pushing, at the end of his prime, and likely in the midst of some expensive years on a contract extension. Add in that the team's lack of upper level pitching talent doesn't really mesh all that well with the current ready, or close to ready crop of positional guys, and the reinforcements/reinforcement potential isn't there unless we strip the lower levels. Factor in that some of the veterans on the squad will likely be stripped for more pieces (Marmol's rebound could be a nice thing ... if he keeps this up, maybe a team gives up something of note in late July), and the timing just doesn't work all that well for us in a Garza scenario.

 

Ideally, we'd get one upper level pitching prospect with legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential ... but who is that guy? I can't think of many guys being mentioned amongst teams legitimately targeting pitching (that is being speculated upon as of now) who would be a legitimate front of the rotation, borderline ace potential option that doesn't have some significant questions about them. So ... do you go for upside further away, or do you go for slightly lower upside that's close to ready/ready right now? A legit "2" type, even a "2/3" type in the upper levels of the minors can often carry high value in trade talks. I think it'd be tough to simply take two high upside A ball arms in a deal like this - the risk is too great that you probably want to sacrifice some ceiling to make sure the guys you get back could potentially provide something.

 

The easy answer is that perhaps you focus on an upper level guy with a good ceiling, solid mid-rotation ceiling or a bit better and target a high upside arm in the lower levels as the 2nd piece. Perhaps instead of targeting 2 of the young A ball arms for the Blue Jays (just offering a hypothetical), you target someone like John Stilson, if he's pitching well in AA, someone who offers some relative safety as a potential pen option but still has a mid-rotation ceiling, to go with one of the young guns (and more).

 

Very good post, but I do have a question. Why is Garza being 31/32 when we get really good a bad thing? Would it be ideal for him to be 26/27? Sure, but he could well still be a very good pitcher at that point and hopefully we'd have somebody (maybe a Blackburn or Underwood) close to taking his place at the top of the rotation by then.

 

I wouldn't go out and acquire Garza at 31/32, but since he's on the team now I wouldn't trade him for less than very good value just because he won't be at the ideal age when we decide to start trying again.

 

It isn't a bad thing, but when you combo that with the lack of assets in the system at this time, plus the fact that he'll likely be close to the end of a deal at a high cost at that time, and I think there's some justification there to push for a trade. While we are a big market, the "small market mentality" of assessing a core group of prospects at relative similar stages should still be a, IMO, for lack of a better term right now, guiding factor since they've gone down a full rebuild path.

 

I mean, look, I'm not saying we take guys whose absolute ceilings are mid-rotation (and who likely are more end of the rotation guys ... say a Dallas Beeler type, who entering the year, looked like he had fringe mid-rotation ceiling, but looks very much like an end of the rotation arm right now). I'm not saying you take any deal that has a decent upper level arm. There has to be ... quality enough upside to justify the risk (for example, I think Zach Britton would be worth the risk, if the right 2nd piece was involved and he was cleared, but obviously, some may disagree), but I have my doubts that we can land a front of the rotation, upper minors starter in a trade. If so, I'll be glad to be wrong, but I do think there is enough justification, for the above reasons, to deal Garza if we get a package roughly akin to what I noted (preferably better, but that's a baseline, I guess).

[dew1679666265]

It isn't a bad thing, but when you combo that with the lack of assets in the system at this time, plus the fact that he'll likely be close to the end of a deal at a high cost at that time, and I think there's some justification there to push for a trade. While we are a big market, the "small market mentality" of assessing a core group of prospects at relative similar stages should still be a, IMO, for lack of a better term right now, guiding factor since they've gone down a full rebuild path.

 

I mean, look, I'm not saying we take guys whose absolute ceilings are mid-rotation (and who likely are more end of the rotation guys ... say a Dallas Beeler type, who entering the year, looked like he had fringe mid-rotation ceiling, but looks very much like an end of the rotation arm right now). I'm not saying you take any deal that has a decent upper level arm. There has to be ... quality enough upside to justify the risk (for example, I think Zach Britton would be worth the risk, if the right 2nd piece was involved and he was cleared, but obviously, some may disagree), but I have my doubts that we can land a front of the rotation, upper minors starter in a trade. If so, I'll be glad to be wrong, but I do think there is enough justification, for the above reasons, to deal Garza if we get a package roughly akin to what I noted (preferably better, but that's a baseline, I guess).

 

I guess I just feel like we need to be extremely picky about who we trade Garza for. Taking a deal where we get a couple guys with mid-rotation ceilings as the first two pieces just doesn't seem like being picky to me. I'm all for adding assets to the system, but when it comes to as integral a piece to the major league roster as Garza, I want real upside assets, not just what appears to be the best deal we can find.

[Cubswin11]

What about the Pirates? They are in contention again and the division is even weaker this year. We won't get Cole or Tallion but what about a package of Heredia/McPherson/Sanchez for Garza and Dejesus? Too much? Too little?

[davell]

Put Starling Marte as the top piece, with Heredia 2nd, and it's in line from a value standpoint. Marte is a top 50ish guy who's pretty ready for the majors. Heredia is a great prospect, but eons away. He can't headline a Garza deal. McPherson and Sanchez make solid 3rd and 4th pieces. My only problem is the headliner for Garza, hopefully the second piece as well, both need to be pitchers. I'm hoping he looks great against Atlanta this week. I'd love a Delgado/Teheran package and think it's borderline realistic, since Teheran's lost some luster this year.

[davell]

Does anyone here actually have ESPNInsider? If so, could you be so kind as to list what Cubs were on Bowden's list of the 10 most likely players dealt before tge deadline?

[jersey cubs fan]

Does anyone here actually have ESPNInsider? If so, could you be so kind as to list what Cubs were on Bowden's list of the 10 most likely players dealt before tge deadline?

 

There were 2.

 

Take a guess.

[davell]

Cool. Was hoping for more than just them. Were Hamels or Greinke on the list?

[jersey cubs fan]

greinke

garza

victorino

dempster

wandy

quintin

liriano

street

myers

scutaro

[Sammy Sofa]

WHAT?!?! Soriano isn't on that list?!? Don't they know the Cubs can also throw in Reed Johnson or Jeff Baker?!?! OR BOTH?!?!

[davell]

Cool, thanks. I saw Greinke evidently likes the idea of playing in Atlanta. I wonder whether it helps us or hurts us, to beat Milwaukee(philly too, if Hamels were to be dealt) to the punch? Teams get more desperate the closer the deadline gets? Or they'd pay up now, because it'd give them a bit longer with the acquisition?