dew1679666265
-
Posts
20,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by dew1679666265
-
It depends on whether he produces closer to his ERA or his xFIP. His ERA has been really good almost every year, but his xFIP has been very mediocre. If he were still cheap, I'd be a lot more open to the idea, but giving up potential good, cheap production for an semi-expensive gamble without elite potential is not real enticing to me.
-
My guess is the inclusion of "top" shortstop prospect means you can rule out Lake and Flaherty. Most people wouldn't consider either a top prospect, I wouldn't think.
-
Obviously not Castro, and I don't think he really qualifies as a prospect anymore. I think Lee is the guy. I'm hoping it's Lake, but it seems obvious it'd be Lee. Good point on Lake, the Rays may have seen in him what Tim's been seeing in him.
-
As for the Frasor rumor, I really hope the Chirinos/Dolis for Davis/O'Day trade goes through quickly so Hendry doesn't feel the need to pursue him any further. That'd be a pretty awful signing.
-
I'd be fine with him as long as we don't overpay. Giving up one of our better prospects is pretty close to overpaying and probably is.
-
That would definitely help him, though his ERA and WHIP haven't been hurt by facing the Red Sox - he has a 3.83 ERA and 1.24 WHIP against them. The Yankees have hit him pretty hard, though. Interestingly, B-R has his similar pitchers at age 26 as Kip Wells and Steve Trachsel. Ouch.
-
It kind of depends on what "top prospects" means exactly, but I can't imagine giving up HJ Lee and Chirinos + pretty much anybody else as a good deal. If top prospects means JJax, Vitters, McNutt, etc., then it gets into the horrid trade range. Looking at xFIP, Garza hasn't been terribly impressive. He may outpitch his xFIP as he's done in Tampa, but he won't have the same level of defense playing behind him in Chicago that he's had in Tampa. Being any more than a 3-4 starter is unlikely, I'd think.
-
Kind of was hoping to keep Chirinos to use in the deal with Texas to get O'Day and Davis. Maybe one of them would accept one of our other catching prospects instead? This has the potential to be a really, really bad trade.
-
because garza is good and wells isn't? Haha, I'm glad we settled that. It's a really good thing you have a sense of humor. It's amazing that 369 minor league innings make people discount 365 solid major league innings.
-
Yeah, tree's a big fan of trading Vittes for him, but he asked where the Wells for Garza idea came from. I think gooney has already voiced his dislike of dealing Vitters for him.
-
It's actually been two good years for Wells, which Garza has matched either of them only once in his career (2009). I understand Garza was in the majors earlier, but as I said before, Wells spending nearly 2 years of his pro career as a catcher probably contributed to him coming to the majors more slowly. It shouldn't affect your opinion of how good he'll be going forward. It could also explain his less than stellar minor league numbers. I'll take 365 solid ML innings over 369 mediocre minor league innings anyway. I agree we'll never agree on this, so furthering the debate would probably just annoy people. You're feeling that Wells will collapse to complete crapiness isn't backed up statistically, though.
-
gooney brought it up as a trade he'd (somewhat reluctantly) go for. The only names mentioned on the Cubs' side are that Jackson and Archer won't be involved. That was me... I'm pretty sure goony would be against it. He actually brought up the idea on the bottom of the first page.
-
That would explain why Wells has better xFIPs than Garza, while Garza has had good ERAs.
-
gooney brought it up as a trade he'd (somewhat reluctantly) go for. The only names mentioned on the Cubs' side are that Jackson and Archer won't be involved.
-
My point was that if Wells has been blah, then Garza has as well. And you're right about why I brought up the catcher thing, it also might help explain why it took Wells so long to get to the majors.
-
If Wells and his 3.1 and 3.3 WAR are blah and his 4.09 and 4.24 are blah, then yes Garza's lesser stats are blah as well. His K/9 got better by a full K, his BB/9 and HR/9 got slightly worse (.42 and .12 respectively), his LOB% got a little better while his BABIP went up and his GB/FB rate got ever so slightly better. Overall, his peripherals got slightly better than last year, though if his BABIP stays high that's not a good sign. And Fangraphs has Wells with WARs of 3.3 and 3.1, while Garza's best WARs are 3.2 and 2.9. He also has seasons of 1.8 and 1.4 WAR. The catcher thing is partially an explanation of why it took him so long to reach the majors, he spent the first year and a half of his pro career as a catcher. That could also explain why it's taken him a little longer to learn how to pitch at the professional level. How much of an impact did that have on his performance? I don't know, but Garza has had one more full season than Wells and two more partial seasons.
-
There's a long history of blah with Garza as well and he doesn't have starting his career as a catcher to fall back on like Wells does.
-
And they used the same reasoning each of the past two times they said Wells wouldn't be any good. I was in the camp that didn't buy into Wells after his first good year, but he had another pretty solid year last year and his peripherals got a little better. I don't think he'll be an ace at any point, but there's nothing in Garza's history to convince me that he's likely to get much better than he's been either. And you haven't shown me a single stat that leads me to believe he has room to improve on what he's done to this point.
-
There were reports earlier in the offseason that the Cubs were leaning toward keeping Kosuke because there just wasn't a market for him right now. From the reports out there, he seems very much like a guy who is more valuable to keep than what we'd get on the open market.
-
This was said when he was first called up, after his first year and it's being said now. I don't know if Wells will continue to be a solid pitcher or if he'll collapse, but I also don't see any reason to think Garza will get a lot better from his career 4.45 xFIP. If I'm gambling either way, I want to gamble with the guy that doesn't cost $5 million.
-
Yeah, I'd do Garza for Wells if both cost the same amount. I haven't seen enough to want to pay Garza $5 million more than Wells, though.
-
I kind of think it's an either/or between Garza and Webb.
-
A 4.09 and 4.24 xFIP are not opposing numbers. Plus, his K/9 improved by 1, while his BB/9 increased only .4 from his first to his second year. Garza has had only one year in the majors like Wells' 2010 and none like his 2009. $5 mil is a lot to gamble that Wells has been a fluke for two years and Garza will get 30 xFIP points better by moving to the NL Central.
-
For only the last two years, while one guy was pitching in the AL East and the other guy was in the NL Central. This is in response to both you and Dr. Cub: So Garza being mediocre for more years than Wells, despite having lesser numbers while in the majors, means we should pay more for Garza than Wells? When neither are likely to be great pitchers going forward, I don't see that as a good allocation of funds.
-
I'll give you that he's a year younger and has better stuff, but that isn't worth $5+ million difference between the two. And I haven't seen anything to show Garza has been significantly better than Wells to this point.