Who do we trade and what do we expect in return?

[Guest]

He's right though. That's an awful return and should be dismissed in favor of keeping him next season.

 

I think that seriously underestimates the price to keep Garza. He's not going to come back on a reasonable deal. He's going to hit a money-rich, talent-poor FA market as the best pitcher available and get something stupid.

 

Then you can pat yourself on the back with the No. 35 overall pick or whatever that might slot into the back of our top 10, instead of getting a top 100 prospect + a guy as good as the No. 35 pick.

 

Or you could actually pay him market value since you're the [expletive] Chicago Cubs not the goddamned Miami Marlins

 

Or you don't because he's probably not worth it (and I don't mean that in the don't sign anybody to big contracts way... I mean that in the matt garza isn't actually that great, especially when you take into account his recent injury history way)

[Guest]

Then sign him.

 

If you can't get an impactful return in trade there is no point in trading him. Incremental improvement does nothing for this team.

 

I thought you were against signing Garza long term.

[jersey cubs fan]

Then sign him.

 

If you can't get an impactful return in trade there is no point in trading him. Incremental improvement does nothing for this team.

 

I thought you were against signing Garza long term.

 

It's not my favorite option.

 

 

But trading him for "whatever you can get" is a worse idea.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's not my favorite option.

 

 

But trading him for "whatever you can get" is a worse idea.

 

 

Disagree.

 

Getting a couple of useful prospects > a draft pick > having Garza on a bad FA deal

[jersey cubs fan]

It's not my favorite option.

 

 

But trading him for "whatever you can get" is a worse idea.

 

 

Disagree.

 

Getting a couple of useful prospects > a draft pick > having Garza on a bad FA deal

 

If it was guaranteed to be a bad deal perhaps, but it is not.

 

You can't negotiate with any strength if you are resigned to trading a guy no matter what.

[Guest]

It's not my favorite option.

 

 

But trading him for "whatever you can get" is a worse idea.

 

 

Disagree.

 

Getting a couple of useful prospects > a draft pick > having Garza on a bad FA deal

 

If it was guaranteed to be a bad deal perhaps, but it is not.

 

You can't negotiate with any strength if you are resigned to trading a guy no matter what.

 

 

You can if there are 6 or 7 teams that want that guy for the next 2-3 months.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If it was guaranteed to be a bad deal perhaps, but it is not.

 

The market for FA pitchers is brutal, and Garza is likely the best. There's a ton of teams with a ton of money looking to purchase top-end FA starting pitchers. The Cubs have already explored extension negotiations with Garza and decided they weren't interested in his asking price.

 

In what universe is that confluence of events not going to result in a bad deal?

 

You can't negotiate with any strength if you are resigned to trading a guy no matter what.

 

Sure you can, so long as there is more than one team that wants him. It's the same garbage that the Blackhawks heard when they were forced to dump several players due to salary cap. They still got excellent value in the trades despite having no ability to keep the players.

[gocubs2118]

Why are people still talking about resigning Garza? What indications have the Cubs given that they're even willing to give him a long term extension? Since day 1, Theo and Jed have made it pretty clear that Garza isn't in their long term plans.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well then make up your mind, you can't say they will have to settle for a crap deal and that they will have plenty of strenght in negotiation that will net them a good deal at the same time.

 

 

The deal mentioned sucked and should be passed on. A good deal should be accepted.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well then make up your mind, you can't say they will have to settle for a crap deal and that they will have plenty of strenght in negotiation that will net them a good deal at the same time.

 

It's not a crap deal. Your expectations are simply out of whack.

[SouthSideRyan]

He's right though. That's an awful return and should be dismissed in favor of keeping him next season.

 

I think that seriously underestimates the price to keep Garza. He's not going to come back on a reasonable deal. He's going to hit a money-rich, talent-poor FA market as the best pitcher available and get something stupid.

 

Then you can pat yourself on the back with the No. 35 overall pick or whatever that might slot into the back of our top 10, instead of getting a top 100 prospect + a guy as good as the No. 35 pick.

 

Or you could actually pay him market value since you're the [expletive] Chicago Cubs not the goddamned Miami Marlins

 

Or you don't because he's probably not worth it (and I don't mean that in the don't sign anybody to big contracts way... I mean that in the matt garza isn't actually that great, especially when you take into account his recent injury history way)

 

Nobody is ever that great to you. Unless we actually sign him to a 1 year rehab deal.

[Guest]

Diamondbacks general manager Kevin Towers told MLB.com the team will have to receive an elite MLB starter in return if the team chooses to trade starting pitcher prospect Archie Bradley, who entered the season as Arizona's second-best prospect, according to MLB.com.

"It would need to be a significant upgrade from what we have," Towers said. "Controllable young pitching is valuable. We're not going to give up a lot for a back-end-of-the-rotation starter. We're not going to sacrifice the future."

From an update on cbs sports.

 

This is something I could get excited about.

[Guest]

Well then make up your mind, you can't say they will have to settle for a crap deal and that they will have plenty of strenght in negotiation that will net them a good deal at the same time.

 

It's not a crap deal. Your expectations are simply out of whack.

 

It's not crap, but it's on the low end of my hopes. I am holding out hope that they can get a top 50 guy and then maybe a fringe top 100 out of somebody.

[SouthSideRyan]

The market for FA pitchers is brutal, and Garza is likely the best. There's a ton of teams with a ton of money looking to purchase top-end FA starting pitchers.

 

Yet none of them will give up anybody good in return on a trade.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yet none of them will give up anybody good in return on a trade.

 

Sure they will. Maybe even a top-100 prospect and another that goes into our top 10.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well then make up your mind, you can't say they will have to settle for a crap deal and that they will have plenty of strenght in negotiation that will net them a good deal at the same time.

 

It's not a crap deal. Your expectations are simply out of whack.

 

No, that is a crap deal. Unfortunately, it's also kind of along the lines of what I expect. My preference is to trade him for something that is potentially impactful. A top 100 guy is not that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No, that is a crap deal. Unfortunately, it's also kind of along the lines of what I expect. My preference is to trade him for something that is potentially impactful. A top 100 guy is not that.

 

If you wanted someone impactful, you should have traded him back when he had 64 starts left in his contract rather than 16.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, that is a crap deal. Unfortunately, it's also kind of along the lines of what I expect. My preference is to trade him for something that is potentially impactful. A top 100 guy is not that.

 

If you wanted someone impactful, you should have traded him back when he had 64 starts left in his contract rather than 16.

 

it wasn't my choice to make

[rawaction]

Yeah, this has dampened my expectations somewhat. Obviously, we'll get more than the same value as a comp pick, but Im not sure how much more than that. Are we going to play chicken right up to the deadline and hope he pitches well AND no one better than him shows up on the block? Personally, I hope not. I think I'd deal him before the ASB, if we get a top 100 type prospect and another guy that fits in or near our top 10. If we aren't getting something close to that, then I guess I'd wait it out. Still wonder what he's looking for in an extension, although that seems like its passed.

 

So we're talking about getting a guy significantly better than Pierce Johnson and a guy on about Vogelbach's level? (Top 100 type and slot around top ten in our system). That's not a horrible return. About what I expect and that's even more valuable if those guys are close to the majors.

[Splendid Splinter]

Also... why are people are all saying this "if we can't get a good deal trading him, then just extend him" crap? Yep it's that easy folks and let just give Garza whatever he wants. Umm... if they haven't extended him by now, then it's not going to happen. It's not like Cubs haven't tried to extend him.

 

 

As far as Garza goes, I'm in the David/Kyle boat where I'll take a top 100 (somewhere in the 40-75 range and would jump into the 5th spot of the prospect list behind Almora/Baez/Bryant/Soler) and another who is just on the outside of the top 100 (comparable to AA/Candelario who btw are anywhere from 5-8 in our top 10 prospect list right now). So you are getting 2 top 10 prospects in a top 10, maybe top 5, minor league system for a rental SP (even for someone as good as Garza) which is pretty darn good IMO. I'll take that over a comp pick.

[XZero771679666304]

No, that is a crap deal. Unfortunately, it's also kind of along the lines of what I expect. My preference is to trade him for something that is potentially impactful. A top 100 guy is not that.

 

If you wanted someone impactful, you should have traded him back when he had 64 starts left in his contract rather than 16.

 

it wasn't my choice to make

 

I would have dealt him prior to last season, but the FO obviously felt that they'd have more leverage closer to the trade deadline, and they were probably right. Unfortunately Garza's injury derailed that plan, and with it the chance to land near MLB-ready "impact" talent. Now Garza has only half a season left and is coming off two significant DL stints, consequently the return is going to be much less.

 

I don't agree with Kyle much, but he's right on this subject. Garza has made it clear he's not going to give the Cubs a discount, so here's what we're left with:

 

1. Garza is not an ace, but he's going to test the market and he's likely to get paid like one.

 

2. Garza is coming off of multiple DL stints (and I still haven't forgotten his elbow scare back in 2011), so he's high risk.

 

Unfortunately, other teams know this too, so they're not going to give up a haul to acquire him. I would also say that a return of one or two top 100 prospects or an extra first round draft pick are probably preferable choices to signing Garza to what would almost certainly be a really bad contract. Not just "all FA contracts are bad" bad, but really ill-advised for any team.

 

I actually have an affinity for Garza and will hate to see him go, but this situation screams "stay away". It really sucks, but it's hard to say anyone really screwed up. Garza got hurt and it just fucked everything up.

[Guest]

@jcrasnick Consensus is that Theo & Jed might have also helped increase Garza's value by moving Feldman so early. #cubs

 

I considered this, but mostly dismissed it. Doubt it'll have much actual impact.

[SouthSideRyan]

1. Garza is not an ace, but he's going to test the market and he's likely to get paid like one.

 

2. Garza is coming off of multiple DL stints (and I still haven't forgotten his elbow scare back in 2011), so he's high risk.

 

Unfortunately, other teams know this too, so they're not going to give up a haul to acquire him.

 

Unless he's a free agent apparently.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1. Garza is not an ace, but he's going to test the market and he's likely to get paid like one.

 

2. Garza is coming off of multiple DL stints (and I still haven't forgotten his elbow scare back in 2011), so he's high risk.

 

Unfortunately, other teams know this too, so they're not going to give up a haul to acquire him.

 

Unless he's a free agent apparently.

 

Paying cash is a lot easier than paying prospects.

[mul21]

1. Garza is not an ace, but he's going to test the market and he's likely to get paid like one.

 

2. Garza is coming off of multiple DL stints (and I still haven't forgotten his elbow scare back in 2011), so he's high risk.

 

Unfortunately, other teams know this too, so they're not going to give up a haul to acquire him.

 

Unless he's a free agent apparently.

 

Money is one thing, but giving up prospects for a guy you may only have for 3 months is completely different.