Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not opposed to that kind of team, but colder weather and better pitching in October hasn't exactly been kind to the Yankees all that often.

 

And then there's the Braves 1 championship.

[Elrhino]

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.

 

This is where the extra year of team service comes in. With Hamels or Greinke, you're trading for 2-3 months. Obviously, you want lock them up, but it will be easier said than done.

 

 

This is especially true for Texas, because pitchers don't want to pitch in that ballpark with that heat. Pitchers have regularly turned down higher offers by the Rangers to sign elsewhere. That was part of the allure of Darvish for them.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Elrhino

[CP_414]

Toonster, I don't want to re-hash things from previous pages since the discussion has passed but I want to say I definitely think Jackie Bradley Jr is an elite prospect. He's basically what you dream of on Albert Almora.

 

Agree with you on Barnes. I definitely don't think Barnes is elite and too many people have fallen in love with him based on his performance at A-ball.

 

Sorry, was busy yesterday and didn't see this. Trying to make this short and sweet, so, let's go bullet points

 

- Barnes would obviously hold more value for the Cubs than Bradley Jr., IMO. My mild counter of myself on Barnes is that the kid is working on his change-up, so he could take another step.

- My issue with Bradley Jr., if I have one (don't get me wrong ... not thinking he's elite yet doesn't mean I don't think he's a very, very good prospect) is that I'm not sure how much power he'll legitimately have as he deals with tougher pitching. We'll know more by season's end, though. Is he a top of the order, 2 hole type bat, or is he a potential middle of the order, anchor bat?

 

I dont think Bradley will ever hit more than 20 HR, but I still think he's an elite prospect if he's hitting 10-15 HR a year, given his elite defense and on-base ability. While he won't hit too many HRs, I think the doubles power will definitely make up for that.

 

I'm with you. It sounds silly in light of that great article just posted, but even without adding power I think he has a great shot of being a .380 obp CF with strong defense. If he does develop 15-20 HR ability he could be pretty special.

 

In general I think trades where you are the seller should be treated like the draft. Just get the best players you can regardless of position and then sort it out when you see who makes it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not opposed to that kind of team, but colder weather and better pitching in October hasn't exactly been kind to the Yankees all that often.

 

A series record of 21-11 since the MacPhail/Hendry regime took over the Cubs would seem to indicate October has been very kind to the Yankees, very often.

[rawaction]

I'm not opposed to that kind of team, but colder weather and better pitching in October hasn't exactly been kind to the Yankees all that often.

 

Wait the Yankees have the most championships by far in MLB history. Hell, even recent history, they've won what 5 since the Jeter era? October has been wonderful for the Yankees since forever.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Part of me wonders if it might be better to just try to build an offensive super team in this run environment, and simply aim for decent on the pitching side. More certainty of production, and less downside if the average pitcher is going to give up so few runs.

 

That has been the sort of thing I've been wanting them to do ever since MacPhail/Hendry decided to do the complete opposite (draft and develop pitchers then go sign bats).

 

Why not develope an offensive super team and then spend the free agent dollars, which should be plentiful on pitching. That's kind of the direction that were headed in, with Rizzo, Castro, Vitters, Jackson, and Castillo for now and Soler, Baez, Almora, Candelerio, Vogelsbach, and Amaya to join in upcoming years as well as guys like Lake, Torryes and Szczur somewhere in between. As for pitching, we should have no shortage of back of the rotation starters and middle relief.

[davell]

I'm not opposed to that kind of team, but colder weather and better pitching in October hasn't exactly been kind to the Yankees all that often.

 

Wait the Yankees have the most championships by far in MLB history. Hell, even recent history, they've won what 5 since the Jeter era? October has been wonderful for the Yankees since forever.

without looking closely, I think 4 of those happened before they tried having an AS at every position. Since the big spending era, they've got one. That said, SSR beought up the best case for the opposite approach and it didn't work either. [expletive] it, I just want one, how it's constructed won't matter at all to me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

without looking closely, I think 4 of those happened before they tried having an AS at every position. Since the big spending era, they've got one. That said, SSR beought up the best case for the opposite approach and it didn't work either. [expletive] it, I just want one, how it's constructed won't matter at all to me.

 

All-Star position players and buy pitching = 1 title

Historic pitching staff and commitment to developing pitchers = 1 title

Taking really mediocre teams into the playoffs = 2 titles

 

I want to copy the Cardinals way. Which way to the pixie dust mines?

[rawaction]

The "all-offense" approach would be interesting. I don't know if it would work though. You look at teams like Texas and Colorado who have tried this approach and not won it all, but they've had success. Of course, now Texas is signing SPs left and right.

 

I would be interested to see an all-offense approach is affected by park factors. Teams like Texas, Colorado, Yanks and Red Sox have great offenses, but do they really need so many superstar hitters in those parks? Is it worth it to them to spend or develop on top of the line pitching because their effectiveness will be diminished? Is it worth it for SD and SF to go all-in on hitters because their parks suppress offense? The Cubs would be an interesting team to do this with because their park can play both ways, to an extreme at times.

 

But the sentiment is true. Hitting is more predictable and sustainable on a year-to-year basis.

[Post Count Padder]

Apparently we'd have interest in taking back another David DeJesus in a Garza deal with Sox. I presume this is just baseless speculation.

 

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?&articleid=1061144624

[Little Slide Rooter]

Apparently we'd have interest in taking back another David DeJesus in a Garza deal with Sox. I presume this is just baseless speculation.

 

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?&articleid=1061144624

 

Let me guess, we owe it to them for Theo.

 

Ryan Sweeny is a lot more left handed Reed Johnson than he is David DeJesus. If they want to go top 3 prospect+top 10 prospect+Ryan Sweeny, then we'll talk.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm sure that Sweeney and Garza talks have nothing to do with each other, but I would be interested in Sweeney as a LF placeholder for a year or two, assuming we're shipping out Soriano. I mean, if he's basically free. Dave Sappelt hasn't lived up to his obvious potential.

[Guest]

The "all-offense" approach would be interesting. I don't know if it would work though. You look at teams like Texas and Colorado who have tried this approach and not won it all, but they've had success. Of course, now Texas is signing SPs left and right.

 

I would be interested to see an all-offense approach is affected by park factors. Teams like Texas, Colorado, Yanks and Red Sox have great offenses, but do they really need so many superstar hitters in those parks? Is it worth it to them to spend or develop on top of the line pitching because their effectiveness will be diminished? Is it worth it for SD and SF to go all-in on hitters because their parks suppress offense? The Cubs would be an interesting team to do this with because their park can play both ways, to an extreme at times.

 

But the sentiment is true. Hitting is more predictable and sustainable on a year-to-year basis.

The only thing that kept the Rangers from winning last year was their manager.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I did not realize how bad Boston's starting pitching was: Doubront 4.41, Beckett 4.43, Lester 4.49, Bard 5.24, Bucholtz 5.53, Daisuke 6.65, yet they sstill stand at .500, and right in the Wild Card race, 2.5 games out. They should be gunning the hardest for pitching. [expletive], we should be trying to sell them on Maholm.

[Guest]

I did not realize how bad Boston's starting pitching was: Doubront 4.41, Beckett 4.43, Lester 4.49, Bard 5.24, Bucholtz 5.53, Daisuke 6.65, yet they sstill stand at .500, and right in the Wild Card race, 2.5 games out. They should be gunning the hardest for pitching. [expletive], we should be trying to sell them on Maholm.

 

And they should be getting Ellsbury and Crawford back soon.

[Elrhino]

Not sure how anyone could say that the Rangers have taken an All Hitting organizational approach. They traded for Cliff Lee for what, at the time, was considered to be one of the Top 10 prospects in baseball, and offered him more money than anyone else in the market to retain him as a free agent. They made a flurry of deadline deals to bring in bullpen talent last year. They draft a lot of pitchers high in the draft. They've developed some good, not great, pitching in house. They haven't developed a true ace pitcher, but neither have most teams, and they can't attract one on the market because no one wants to pitch in that stadium in that heat. In the meantime they just spent $110 million on a Japanese import.

[jersey cubs fan]

And Boston has had a "dismal" first half of the season.

 

 

Ken Tremendous is a funny guy but he's worse than a lot of the most whiny Cubs fans when it comes to discussing sports. I don't understand how he can go from FJM to what he is as a fan of the Red Sox.

[toonsterwu]

I guess I'm in the minority but I really don't care if the returns for Dempster and Garza are pitcher-dominated. I just want the best prospects.

 

Well, let's frame this another way - if it's close, would you prefer a pitcher? Because that's all I'm arguing. If there's a guy that's a significantly better talent (and I'm focusing mostly on the main pieces to a deal), then of course you take the better talent. But ... for a dumb hypothetical ... say you have a guy who you feel is a 9, but an arm that you feel is an 8.8. I'd rather take the arm in that scenario, in all honesty.

I think Ronnie Woo Woo summed up my concern over pitching talent (inherent likelihood of injury). Not only would the pitching talent have to be equal or superior to the positional talent, I'd want it to be in the upper levels of the minors too.

 

I definitely understand the view, but at some point, we're going to need to start accumulating quantity of solid pitching talent, which this system currently lacks. It's debatable if this draft added to it, and it's debatable how much SP potential is in the low minors. Without adding a quantity of solid pitching talent at some point, it'll be hard for this team to reach "critical mass" of some sort, where there's a young core of positional and pitching prospects developing together, on a similar timeline.

[toonsterwu]

I don't want them to take pitching for the sake of pitching, but I would prefer them to get a good pitching return than positional return.

 

That's all I'm saying as well. If we get offered an elite positional prospect, or the positional talent is simply that much better (either in upside, or ability to help soon on a regular basis), then okay. There's definitely enough areas of concern, at catcher, in the OF, at 2nd, and 3rd.

 

If it's close, I want the pitching to develop a critical mass for us to have a chance to build off of.

[toonsterwu]

The Royals are determined to sign a significant starting free agent pitcher for 2013 this coming offseason, Danny Knobler of CBSSports.com reports. After a difficult first half that included a number of serious injuries, the Royals' rotation ranks 28th in baseball with a 5.16 ERA. 

 

Perfect match? Who says we need to trade him to a contender? A lot of teams with a lot more money than The Royals will be in on every SP from Hamels to Liriano. Maybe they have a chance at Dempster, Liriano, Zambrano, or Sanchez, but they may as well not bother with Hamels or Greinke, who's already demanded they trade him once.

 

Here's where Garza comes in. A young, front end starter with another year under team control. While they can't compete with the big boys as far as money, they can with prospects. Regardless of who's in on Hamels or Greinke, if we wanted to work with KC now, we'd be alone. I'm not sure if their system is as bountiful as it once was, but as far as I'm concerned the package can start and end with Wil Meyers.

 

If we can get Myers in any sort of deal for Garza, then let's do it. But ... I doubt they are going to be offering up Myers. If so, though, I'm game.

[toonsterwu]

Part of me wonders if it might be better to just try to build an offensive super team in this run environment, and simply aim for decent on the pitching side. More certainty of production, and less downside if the average pitcher is going to give up so few runs.

 

That has been the sort of thing I've been wanting them to do ever since MacPhail/Hendry decided to do the complete opposite (draft and develop pitchers then go sign bats).

 

Why not develope an offensive super team and then spend the free agent dollars, which should be plentiful on pitching. That's kind of the direction that were headed in, with Rizzo, Castro, Vitters, Jackson, and Castillo for now and Soler, Baez, Almora, Candelerio, Vogelsbach, and Amaya to join in upcoming years as well as guys like Lake, Torryes and Szczur somewhere in between. As for pitching, we should have no shortage of back of the rotation starters and middle relief.

 

The general idea of an offensive super team and addressing pitching through the FA market has it's merits. The problem I have with it, though, is you can't, for lack of a better term, get by with scraps. While the Yankees may be trying to trim their budget, more and more teams have money to spend (I mean, I can think of some clubs that might increase their payroll a decent amount next year), and outside of fluke years, there are rarely more than a couple guys that are legitimate impact starters. Unless the player in question has an affinity for the Cubs, it's a tough situation to consistently hope to win on these FA dynamics.

 

If they opt to go this way, and land the FA pitching, great.

[toonsterwu]

I'm sure that Sweeney and Garza talks have nothing to do with each other, but I would be interested in Sweeney as a LF placeholder for a year or two, assuming we're shipping out Soriano. I mean, if he's basically free. Dave Sappelt hasn't lived up to his obvious potential.

 

Sappelt's actually been hitting well of late, last I checked.

[toonsterwu]

I did not realize how bad Boston's starting pitching was: Doubront 4.41, Beckett 4.43, Lester 4.49, Bard 5.24, Bucholtz 5.53, Daisuke 6.65, yet they sstill stand at .500, and right in the Wild Card race, 2.5 games out. They should be gunning the hardest for pitching. [expletive], we should be trying to sell them on Maholm.

 

What's the purpose of adding Maholm for them? I would hope a smart FO like their's would recognize that Maholm isn't necessarily a better option than what they have.

 

Now, I think they'll gun after elite pitching. Just have a hard time seeing them go after Maholm types.

[toonsterwu]

Not sure how anyone could say that the Rangers have taken an All Hitting organizational approach. They traded for Cliff Lee for what, at the time, was considered to be one of the Top 10 prospects in baseball, and offered him more money than anyone else in the market to retain him as a free agent. They made a flurry of deadline deals to bring in bullpen talent last year. They draft a lot of pitchers high in the draft. They've developed some good, not great, pitching in house. They haven't developed a true ace pitcher, but neither have most teams, and they can't attract one on the market because no one wants to pitch in that stadium in that heat. In the meantime they just spent $110 million on a Japanese import.

 

I really like what the Rangers have done. I don't love their current batch of pitching in the upper levels, but I love their aggressive moves to target young arms.

[Guest]

And Boston has had a "dismal" first half of the season.

 

 

Ken Tremendous is a funny guy but he's worse than a lot of the most whiny Cubs fans when it comes to discussing sports. I don't understand how he can go from FJM to what he is as a fan of the Red Sox.

So agree on Michael Schur.