CubsWin

He makes it more likely that we reach the postseason and in a weak division that's fine. Being more likely to make it isn't worth giving up two of your top 5 prospects for a guy whose peripherals are very similar to Wells, though. I'd have loved Garza if we could have gotten him at a good price. But there was really no reason to overpay the way we did. He's just not been good enough to warrant it. Garza at a good price would have been awesome. The Rays were in a tough spot. His salary is about to double. They just lost Pena, Crawford and Soriano. Their chances of competing in the AL East just got a lot worse. They have Hellickson waiting. It is time for them to go young and cheap again and build it up again. The Rays got everything they wanted. Why? Because Hendry wanted to try to save his job. Well, his job is to build a winner, a World Series winner, not get a paycheck.

This sums up my thoughts very well. I just don't see the Cubs getting the better end of the value here. Add in the weird timing of the trade in that it isn't very likely that Garza is the missing piece to get the Cubs to the World Series much less the post season in the next couple years and it makes me feel even worse about the trade. That's my issue. In 2003, I had visions of a dynasty. Strong farm system, good young talent already on the team, bad contracts coming off the books and and an increasing payroll. The stars were aligned to be good for a very long time. The wheels sorta came off, however. Prospects were traded for average talent rather than difference makers, big contracts were handed out to players who were not difference makers, etc.... I had a vision of those stars realigning with a new strong farm system, some bad contracts coming off the books soon, some good young talent already on the team, and now the GM is basically attempting to save his job by turning a potential 4th place team into maybe a 1st place team, maybe a 3rd place team. Can't blame him for that, I suppose. But I worry that this patchwork offseason kills off the potential for a long run of success. That's my thing, too. I had visions of a dynasty with these prospects and the Cubs considerable financial resources. Garza's a good addition and will be under the team's control for 3 more years, but he will also be getting more expensive each year assuming he continues to perform as he has or better. What free agents would the Cubs have been able to sign if his salary weren't on the books and Archer was in the rotation?

This sums up my thoughts very well. I just don't see the Cubs getting the better end of the value here. Add in the weird timing of the trade in that it isn't very likely that Garza is the missing piece to get the Cubs to the World Series much less the post season in the next couple years and it makes me feel even worse about the trade.

8th ranked system in baseball BA is gospel now that they've said something good about the Cubs. I grant that I'm not that up on the minor leagues, but your No. 1 prospect is a guy who isn't striking out at a K/inning pace, your No. 10 prospect is a Guy(er) who just had his first really good season as a 24-year-old at AA. I find the 8th place in baseball thing skepticism-inducing. You have every right to be skeptical of Jim Callis's ranking of the Cubs organization, but you need to take a closer look at the statistics. Archer most certainly averaged better than a K per inning. Last season he struck out 149 in 142.1 innings. The season before that he struck out 119 in 109 innings. But more importantly hitters averaged .200 last year and .202 the year before. And even more impressive than that was that he allowed just 6 HRs in 142.1 innings in '10 and 0 HRs in 109 innings in '09. As far as Guyer is concerned. He was a 5th round draft pick who improved every year at Virginia hitting .370/.440/.559 in his final season. His career with the Cubs followed the same trajectory. In his first full season in Low-A Peoria he hit .269/.331/.498. The Cubs thought so highly of him that they jumped him all the way to AA in '09. That proved to be to big of a transition, but when they moved him back to High-A, he hit .347/.407/.453. And then last year he conquered AA going .344/.398/.588. At every level on his way up, he OPS'd .830 or higher. He's not old. As a senior college draftee, he's right on schedule. He has above average tools across the board. Good defense, strong accurate arm, hits for excellent average and average power and was the system's best base stealer swiping 30 in 33 attempts last year and 30 in 37 tries in '09. I think it's fair to say he's been good for a bit longer than just last season. To have a guy like that ranked 10th, says a lot about the strength of the Cubs organization. At least before they made this trade...

This guy sums up my feelings on this trade pretty well. yahoo sports

Apparently 2nd best ridiculous. Or at least it used to be until this trade. Hope the Cubs get deep into the post season at least once in the next 3 years, otherwise what was the point?

That says a lot about how picked clean the system was after all the good ones got called up. 8th ranked system in baseball Beat ya...

That says a lot about how picked clean the system was after all the good ones got called up. Actually, it doesn't. Jim Callis of Baseball America said he would rank the Cubs organization 8th and if Cashner and Castro were still included, they would have been 2nd only to the Royals. So yes, there was a drop off, but only down to 8th best.

if we're playing the likely game, it's likely archer, lee, and guyer combined will never be as productive as matt garza by himself. Well, I hope you guys are right...

I guess I'm a dynasty guy through and through and that makes it hard to swallow a trade that gives up Archer, Lee and Guyer for a pitcher who will likely not be enough to put them over the top this season. This smacks of a trade driven by the fear of a GM trying to win now and willing to mortgage the team's future to do so.

It's been out there. Still waiting to hear who it is. One report, I think from ESPN, has said that will not be anyone significant. But it's wait and see right now.

They've got a better, younger, cheaper guy to replace him with in Hellickson? Even more reason why they would be motivated to get less in return for Garza. Not only did the Rays need to move Garza because of his salary doubling, but they already had his replacement waiting in the wings. I think Hendry got played.

What makes this not a salary dump for the Rays?

My heart sank when I heard that Archer and Lee were included in the deal. The fact of the matter is that Garza is being traded because the Rays have prospects knocking on the door in Hellickson and Garza is about to get expensive. This is a salary dump. Hendry failed to call their bluff and the Cubs will likely pay the price for years to come. They may not. Garza might become an ace after moving from the AL East to the NL Central and Archer might not pan out. It's not an absolute lock that this is a terrible trade, but as of right now, I'm disheartened.

This just makes it all the more important to sign Szczur. If Ricketts meant he's all about building through the system, then do what it takes to sign him.

Brian Schlitter has been claimed off of waivers by the New York Yankees.

This is the first article I've seen on the subject in several weeks. I acknowledge the Cubs organization's efforts to compete this season, but I sincerely hope they don't mortgage the too much of the future to do so.

You guys are way too hard on Hendry. His big mistakes have come with free agent signings, not trades. Other than the Juan Pierre deal I'd say his trade track record is excellent. Considering all the high profile trades Hendry has made over the years I'd say its impressive that Ricky Nolasco is the only dealt Cub prospect to turn into a real commodity (Pinto's control is still way too erratic to fall into that category). Dontrelle Willis? Short-lived, but definitely turned into a real commodity. But I agree, Hendry's trades for the most part have been his strong suit.

Where? I was looking for them as well. Fangraphs has game logs, but no splits.

I agree that if he isn't getting decent playing time, it would be best for Guyer to be in AAA. But I disagree with your characterization that his pedigree is basically a great half season in AA. One, he started out great in April hitting .283/.427/.467 and was a perfect 8 for 8 on the base paths. Then he got injured on April 28th, was out until May 10th, aggravated the injury the next day and was out until May 29th when he went 0-for-5 with 3Ks in his first game back. He struggled in June while getting his stroke back, basically going through a second spring training, but from June 30th on, the guy was a world beater. Consistently. Like he was in April before the injury. Two, Guyer put up excellent numbers in '09 in Daytona going .347/.407/.453 in 305 plate appearances. He's been performing at a high level a lot longer than just the 2nd half of last season. When you account for injuries, rehab, and natural adjustment periods after making the jump from Low-A Peoria to AA, he's been very good over long stretches each of the past two seasons.

My hope is that we'd sign one of these guys instead of trading for Garza. This is the rotation I'd envision: Demp Z Wells Francis/Duchsherer/etc Cashner Silva is then either traded or put in a long relief role to be moved into the rotation should anybody get hurt. Gorz could be traded as well. I think he could bring something decent in return. Not great, but decent.

Couldn't agree more. Cashner's minor league numbers last season, though limited due to his early call-up, were pretty darn good. 9 starts, 55 IP (just over 6 innings per start), 6-1, 2.12 ERA, 35 H, 1 HR, 15 BB, 56 K. When a pitcher can hold batters to well under a hit per inning and get more than a strikeout per inning at the upper levels with a WHIP under 1, that's good. I'd really like to see what he can do at the major league level over the next 5 years.

Thanks for that. I went backed and checked my research and that is accurate. The article I read was incorrect. He played at UVA for three years and got better every year. Kinda like he has with the Cubs...

meh, Mitch Atk...err Randy Wells could do that. Last year, Wells gave up 1 or less ER in 11 of his 32 starts (34.4%). Garza did it in 13 of his 32 starts (40.6%). In 2009, Wells gave up 1 or less ER in 12 of his 27 starts (44.4%). Garza did it in 8 of his 32 starts (25%). So, yeah, Randy Wells could do that.

Yep, that's how I see him, too. When I responded, you can pretend that wasn't one of my many Jim Hendry hate posts. While I did say it takes a competent GM, that wasn't necessarily a drag on Hendry. My point being, with the Cubs resources since 2003, there should not have been a "cycle" of any kind. GM's in that time have done much more with less and if you gave a good GM those resources, I'm certainly convinced that the Cubs could have been in a position to dominate their division and the NL throughout the remainder of the decade and beyond. It's possible that Hendry might have gotten those results if he went in an entirely different direction than he did. Unfortunately for him, he did go in the direction he did, and this organization has taken steps backwards rather than forwards too many times. Given another GM gig, Hendry may learn from his previous mistakes and show the skills of a top tier GM. However, one cannot ignore the mistakes that have been made to this point and where this team is currently at today. Basically I was saying that there is no reason for a team with a 130m payroll to have to grab victory in cycles. They should be in a position to win every year like the Yankees and Boston always do. They shouldn't have to go through a rebuilding mode when they lose a top tier free agent. They should be able to trade from their resources and sign top tier free agents to replace the players they are losing. Agreed. Maybe not the Yank-mes. They are in a financial class all by their lonesome. But the Cubs resources aren't that different than the Red Sox. Their results, however, sadly are. Due to mainly some poor signings and extensions. I don't think anyone is ignoring his mistakes. However, those that consider the improvements Hendry made to the organization to have been lucked into and call him an idiot and the worst are ignoring his positives. That said, the Cubs deserve a top notch GM, and to date, Hendry has not proven himself to be that. And now back to our slow-moving, but regularly scheduled, Matt Garza program...