Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guest]

I don't suppose we could hope for Profar as part of a Garza package? I'm guessing he's untouchable?

He's probably the #1 prospect in baseball at this point. No chance.

 

Keith Law and Jim Callis have or will have him at #2 in their midseason rankings, behind Dylan Bundy.

 

He's certainly off limits in a Garza trade.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Profar for Garza? Um wow, no. Maybe if we threw in Castro and Baez.

[TruffleShuffle]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

[XZero771679666304]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

Not unless they thought he'd sign an extension, imo.

[Guest]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

[XZero771679666304]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

[Guest]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

 

No, but depending on how you value them I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to be traded for Garza.

[XZero771679666304]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

 

No, but depending on how you value them I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to be traded for Garza.

 

I don't, either. I would think it might take another prospect to sweeten the deal, but I don't think it would be a preposterous demand. I'd definitely trade Profar for Garza straight up before Hamels, but that extra year of control means a lot to me.

[Guest]

I hope Texas feels the same way.

[Guest]

To clarify more, if Texas wants to just say they aren't going to trade Profar, that's fine. But the scoffing that a high caliber MLB SP with 1.5 years of control could not possibly be enough to get the SS who is hitting well in the Texas league is silly. Prospects fail, and fail at a very high rate.

[Vinestal]

To clarify more, if Texas wants to just say they aren't going to trade Profar, that's fine. But the scoffing that a high caliber MLB SP with 1.5 years of control could not possibly be enough to get the SS who is hitting well in the Texas league is silly. Prospects fail, and fail at a very high rate.

that's what I was thinking. Profar is still in A ball right? I was just dreaming but you never know.

[Clem Fandango]

To clarify more, if Texas wants to just say they aren't going to trade Profar, that's fine. But the scoffing that a high caliber MLB SP with 1.5 years of control could not possibly be enough to get the SS who is hitting well in the Texas league is silly. Prospects fail, and fail at a very high rate.

that's what I was thinking. Profar is still in A ball right? I was just dreaming but you never know.

 

AA ball. 19 years old. I'm sure if Profar was doing what he was doing at the age of 22 he'd be much lower on the prospect lists. His overall numbers are very nice, but not insane if that's all you're looking at... but because he's 19 and in AA ball, they pretty much are insane. He's great.

Edited July 10, 2012 by The Logan

[XZero771679666304]

To clarify more, if Texas wants to just say they aren't going to trade Profar, that's fine. But the scoffing that a high caliber MLB SP with 1.5 years of control could not possibly be enough to get the SS who is hitting well in the Texas league is silly. Prospects fail, and fail at a very high rate.

that's what I was thinking. Profar is still in A ball right? I was just dreaming but you never know.

 

Double A.

[davell]

He's putting up a .292/.370/.476 line with 9 homers in AA at 19.

[Vinestal]

Wow yeah I was thinking he was still in high A.

[KingCubsFan]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

 

No, but depending on how you value them I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to be traded for Garza.

Of course it's outrageous. They could get a much better player than Garza for him.

[Tracer Bullet]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

 

No, but depending on how you value them I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to be traded for Garza.

 

Let alone Castro too

[Guest]

hamels for profar... rangers would probably have to think about it, right?

 

If we're to believe this last page of the thread, the Rangers should probably hold out for the inevitable Strasburg/Harper package.

 

Would you trade Profar for half a year of Hamels?

 

No, but depending on how you value them I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to be traded for Garza.

Of course it's outrageous. They could get a much better player than Garza for him.

 

That's not quite the same thing, and even then I think you'd find the availability of those players better than Garza to be very slim at the trade deadline.

[Guest]

Just because I don't think Garza would be enough for Profar doesn't mean I think the Castro + Garza for Profar is anything short of ridiculous.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe I'm just looking at this completely backwards, but Garza doesn't seem like remotely enough for Profar.

 

Yeah, prospects fail. But elite, top-3 prospects with a case to be No. 1 overall? Their failure rate isn't *that* high. The excess value of six cost-controlled years of Profar, discounted by the failure rate, dwarfs Garza's.

[KingCubsFan]

 

That's not quite the same thing, and even then I think you'd find the availability of those players better than Garza to be very slim at the trade deadline.

If the Rangers were willing to give up Profar, I think the pool of available players would expand greatly (probably Felix, Cueto and Zimmerman for starters).

 

If we had traded Corey Patterson back in 2001 for, say, Brad Radke or Andy Pettite, would that have been a good trade? It wouldn't have necessarily been awful, but we'd all be disappointed that we didn't get someone even better.

[Warren Brusstar]

Just because I don't think Garza would be enough for Profar doesn't mean I think the Castro + Garza for Profar is anything short of ridiculous.

 

Castro + Garza for Profar is patently ridiculous.

[TruffleShuffle]

Maybe I'm just looking at this completely backwards, but Garza doesn't seem like remotely enough for Profar.

 

Yeah, prospects fail. But elite, top-3 prospects with a case to be No. 1 overall? Their failure rate isn't *that* high. The excess value of six cost-controlled years of Profar, discounted by the failure rate, dwarfs Garza's.

 

that's not really the only thing they'd consider though. the rangers have a legitimately very good team this year. one of the top 2 or 3 teams most likely to win the world series, i'd guess. they should have won it last year but choked. the franchise has never won a title. their weakness, by any account, is frontline starting pitching - colby lewis and matt harrison are fine but aren't more mid-rotation types, and darvish hasn't shown enough command to be considered elite. their best hitter is a free agent after this season. their good-hitting catcher/dh is also a free agent. when you're so close to having a team that looks like a WS favorite on paper, it's easier to go all in with a "win now" trade. i'm not sure i'd do it for garza or hamels, but i'd have to think about either one.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's reasonable. But even from that point of view, if I'm trading a prospect the quality of Profar, I'd have to think I could do better than Matt Garza. Grienke, Hamels, Hernandez? Garza is in the Darvish "nice but not elite" mold.

[Guest]

 

That's not quite the same thing, and even then I think you'd find the availability of those players better than Garza to be very slim at the trade deadline.

If the Rangers were willing to give up Profar, I think the pool of available players would expand greatly (probably Felix, Cueto and Zimmerman for starters).

 

If we had traded Corey Patterson back in 2001 for, say, Brad Radke or Andy Pettite, would that have been a good trade? It wouldn't have necessarily been awful, but we'd all be disappointed that we didn't get someone even better.

 

Felix perhaps, but the Reds aren't selling this year, and Zimmerman isn't better than Garza/the Nationals aren't selling either.

 

And really, your hypothetical illustrates the point I was getting at. I'm sure plenty of people would scream and wail at the idea of trading a top 10 prospect for someone without 7 win upside, and yet it's more than conceivable that the team comes out ahead even before you consider Truffle's point about sacrificing to win a title.